Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Waterworks Board Bill.

Reported. [Preamble not proved.]

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN VARIETY ARTISTS (PERMITS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits that have been issued for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date to foreign dance bands and cabaret or other artists to enter and work in Great Britain, and the average length of such permits?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): 1,394 permits for foreign variety and cabaret artists were issued during 1935. No permits were issued during that year for foreign dance bands. The periods covered by the permits vary from one week upwards according to the nature of the engagements to which they relate.

Mr. DAY: Does that figure include the number of permits extended from previous dates?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that certain foreign musicians have been in this country for a very considerable time and that they keep having their permits extended?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour the number of wage and salary agreements which are based upon the cost-of-living index, and also the approximate numbers of individuals working under such agreements?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The number of agreements between employers and workpeople, known to my Department to provide for adjustments of wages and salaries in correspondence with movements in the cost-of-living index figure, is 134; similar arrangements are also in operation, under the provisions of statutory order, in five of the trades to which the Trade Boards Acts have been applied. The total number of employés covered by these arrangements is estimated at between 1,250,000 and 1,500,000. A number of these agreements, however, estimated to cover about 500,000 workpeople, are at present suspended or will not come into effective operation unless there is a substantial rise in the cost-of-living index figure above the present level.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: asked the Minister of Labour the prices of all items comprised in the cost-of-living index in 1904, 1918, and at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIAHEAD: As the reply includes a statistical table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following Table gives the desired information, as regards those commodities for which average retail prices are computed, for July, 1914, July, 1918, and 29th February, 1936; comparable figures are not available for any date prior to July, 1914. For some of the items of which account is taken in computing the cost-of-living index no calculation of average prices is made, the figures used being the averages of the percentage changes in prices indicated by the information collected; in these cases index numbers are given in the Table showing the approximate ratio of prices in July, 1918, and at 29th February, 1936, to those of July, 1914 (taken as = 100).

Item.
July, 1914.
July, 1918*
29th February, 1936.


A.—Average Prices of Items for which averages are commuted.


Beef, British:
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Ribs
…
…
…
…
per lb.

10
1
6
1
1¼


Thin flank
…
…
…
…
per lb.

6½
1
1

7


Beef, chilled or frozen:








Ribs
…
…
…
…
…
per lb.

7¼
1
6

8¾


Thin flank
…
…
…
…
per lb.

4¾
1
0¾

4½


Mutton, British:








Legs
…
…
…
…
…
per lb.

10½
1
7
1
3


Breast
…
…
…
…
…
per lb.

6½

11¾

7¼


Mutton, frozen:








Legs
…
…
…
…
…
per lb.

6¾
1
7

9½


Breast
…
…
…
…
…
per lb.

4

11

3¾


Bacon (streaky)†
…
…
…
…
per lb.

11¼
2
2¾
1
2


Flour
…
…
…
…
per 7 lb.

10½
1
4
1
1¼


Bread
…
…
…
…
per 4 lb.

5¾

9

8¼


Tea
…
…
…
…
per lb.
1
6¼
2
8
1
11½


Sugar (granulated)
…
…
…
per lb.

2

7

2¼


Milk
…
…
…
…
per quart

3½

6

6¾


Butter:








Fresh
…
…
…
…
per lb.
1
2½
2
4½
1
3¼


Salt
…
…
…
…
per lb.
1
2¼
2
1½
1
1¾


Cheese
…
…
…
…
per lb.

8¾
1
5

9


Margarine
…
…
…
…
per lb.

7
1
0

5¾


Eggs (fresh)
…
…
…
…
each

1¼

4¼

1½


Potatoes
…
…
…
…
per 7 lb.

4¾

7½

8


Coal
…
…
…
…
per ton.
23
0
38
5
43
11


per cwt.
1
2½
2
1
2
3¼


Gas
…
…
…
per 1,000 cubic feet
2
3½
3
5½
3
4


Lamp oil
…
…
…
…
per gallon

9
1
11¾

10½


Candles (cheap wax)
…
…
…
per lb.

3½
1
2

4¼


Matches
…
…
…
…
per 12 boxes

1¼
1
0

10¼‡


Soap
…
…
…
…
per lb.

3¾

8½

4¼


Soda
…
…
…
…
per 7 lb.

3¼

6

6


per lb.

½

1

1


B.—Index numbers showing the ratio of prices to those of July, 1914 (taken as = 100).


Fish
…
…
…
…
…
…
100
290
201


Rent (including rates)
…
…
…
…
l00
102
158


Clothing
…
…
…
…
…
…
100
320
185 to 190


Fares
…
…
…
…
…
…
100
120
155


Newspapers
…
…
…
…
…
…
100
165
190


Domestic utensils
…
…
…
…
…
100
230
160


Tobacco and cigarettes
…
…
…
…
100
200
220


* The figures for July, 1918, relate to the beginning of the month.


† If this kind is seldom dealt with in a locality, the returns quote the prices of another kind locally representative.


‡ Prices of boxes averaging other than 50 matches have been adjusted proportionately to produce the equivalent price for 50.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGE REGISTERS.

Mr. W. H. GREEN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that it is the practice in certain employment exchanges to ignore names on the dead register when sending applicants after employment, and selecting only those from the live register; and will he

take steps to see that those whose names are on the dead register have fair consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I assume that the hon. Member is referring, not to the dead register which contains records of persons who have ceased to be applicants for employment, but to persons on the non-claimant; register who are not in receipt of insurance benefit or un-


employment allowances. The latter are included in the live register and are considered according to their qualifications, with others on the register, when selection is made for vacancies notified.

TRAINING CENTRES (MEDICAL TREATMENT).

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can yet inform the House what steps he proposes to take to provide medical treatment for young men?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Arrangements are being made to provide treatment in appropriate cases for young men in the Special Areas of the ages of 18 to 24 inclusive who are willing to attend a training centre, but who are at the moment prevented from doing so by reason of remediable defects.

Miss WARD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say what the arrangements are?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The arrangements are being undertaken, but they are not yet completed.

Miss WARD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the arrangements are likely to be completed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot give any date, but they are being pressed on as quickly as possible.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Are the people who come to those centres to have special preference over others who may not be able to get to the centres, and why, if this treatment is to be provided for men between the ages of 18 and 24 in Special Areas, should there not also be special consideration in respect of my semi-special area, where there are hundreds between the ages of 18 and 24 out of work?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This is a particular question about the medical examinations of persons who go to particular training centres.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour whether a decision has yet been come to with regard to the provision of special work for men attending instructional centres in accordance with the recommendation of Mr. Malcolm Stewart?

Mr. STOREY: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of His

Majesty's Government to adopt the suggestion of the Commissioner for the Special Areas that works of public utility should be undertaken so as to give to unemployed men between the ages of 18 and 21, who have completed a course at an instructional centre, employment for at least one year?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not at present in a position to add to the answer which I gave to the similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) on 12th March. I am sending my hon. Friends a copy.

Mr. STOREY: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when he will be in a position to add something to that answer?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, I cannot give a date.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether instructions have been issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board to the district officers, stating that in cases here the rate of transitional payments is higher than the rate provided by the unemployment assistance regulations a grant in respect of special needs is not to be sanctioned; and whether he will supply a copy of such instruction?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed by the board that no such instructions have been issued.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the unemployment allowance of Mr. R. Race, of Craghead, County Durham, was stopped for the whole of the week in which his 65th birthday occurred, whereby he lost his unemployment allowance before his pension began; and whether he will take steps to remedy such anomalies?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the facts are as stated. Steps have been taken, however to provide for cases of this kind in future.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state when the new regulations under the Unemployment Assistance Board will be brought before this House?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot add to the reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Salford, South (Mr. Stourton) on 4th February. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the new regulations will be brought in before the end of the present Parliament?

Mr. STOREY: asked the Minister of Labour how long after a man who is in receipt of unemployment assistance becomes temporarily ill he is treated as ceasing to be able-bodied and ineligible for unemployment assistance?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The period varies from a week to 19 days, according to the incidence of the sickness or incapacity in relation to the pay week of the person concerned. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an explanatory leaflet on the matter issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. STOREY: Is the Minister aware that this rule throws men back on to public assistance, and does he not think that something should be done to relieve the local authorities in these areas?

Mr. LAWSON: Cannot the leaflet be placed at the disposal of hon. Members in the Library, as it deals with rather an important matter?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: If the hon. Member desires that this should be done, I will make arrangements to have the leaflet put in the Library.

INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the promised legislation bringing into insurance black-coated workers, he will suggest to the statutory committee the equal and simultaneous inclusion of managers, assistant managers, over-lookers, foremen, skilled workmen, etc., with a wage or salary exceeding the present limit of £250 a year?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There has been no promise of legislation but, as I have already informed the House, my right hon. Friend has under consideration a report by the Unemployment In-

surance Statutory Committee upon the remuneration limit fir non-manual workers, a description which covers non-manual employés of the classes mentioned by my hon. Friend. There is no remuneration limit for manual workers.

NORTH-EASTERN HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour how many local authorities have taken advantage of the facilities offered for obtaining special financial help through the establishment of the North-Eastern Housing Development Board?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed that up to the present 24 local authorities in the north-eastern special area have approached the North-Eastern Housing Association in connection with the provision by the association of housing accommodation required by the authorities in relation to schemes under the Housing Acts, 1930 and 1935. Arrangements have beer or are about to be made by the association for the carrying out of schemes involving the erection of 4,109 houses and 150 flats for the councils of four county boroughs, one borough, four urban districts and two rural districts.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WILSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state for any available date during each of the last five years the total number of insured men, women and juveniles in each age group and the number of those unemployed in each age group; and whether, in the annual report or abstract of labour statistics, these particulars could be given?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As regards the first part of the question, the following statement shows, for each age group for which figures are available, the estimated numbers of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive, in Great Britain at the beginning of July of each year since 1931, and the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed at a date towards the end of June in those years.

—
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.


Estimated numbers of insured persons at beginning of July (exclusive of persons insured under the Special Schemes):







Men aged 21–64
8,350,000*
8,488,000*
7,696,000
7,839,000
7,982,000


Young men aged 18–20
880,000
857,000
820,000


Boys aged 16 and 17
…
575,000
554,000
505,000
468,000
450,000


Women aged 21–64
3,000,000*
2,935,000*
2,333,000
2,353,000
2,393,000


Young women aged 18–20
669,000
655,000
625,000


Girls aged 16 and 17
…
435,000
423,000
390,000
368,000
357,000


Estimated numbers insured under the Special Schemes for the Banking and Insurance Industries†:







Men aged 18–64
…
92,000
94,500
98,000
100,000
101,000


Boys aged 16 and 17
…
4,000
2,800
2,400
2,600
3,000


Women aged 18–64
…
41,000
43,000
44,300
45,100
47,000


Girls aged 16 and 17
…
3,000
2,700
2,300
2,300
2,000


Total aged 16–64 (including Special Schemes).
12,500,000
12,543,000
12,620,000
12,690,000
12,780,000


Insured persons recorded as unemployed towards end of June (including Special Schemes):







Men aged 21–64
…
1,816,079
2,086,408
1,894,846
1,618,149
1,521,423


Young men aged 18–20
…
154,754
171,985
140,751
105,504
86,935


Boys aged 16 and 17
…
47,788
50,671
32,718
23,874
22,708


Women aged 21–64
…
496,314
358,473
283,816
257,040
251,406


Young women aged 18–20
88,299
75,133
59,153
46,311
38,580


Girls aged 16 and 17
…
29,728
27,599
18,212
14,649
15,164


Total aged 16–64
…
2,632,962
2,770,269
2,429,496
2,065,527
1,936,216


* Satisfactory statistics are not available as to the numbers aged 18 to 20 and 21 to 64, respectively, in 1931 and 1932.


† For the Banking and Insurance industries separate figures are not available as to the numbers, aged 18 to 20 and 21 to 64, respectively insured under the Special Schemes.

Juveniles aged.14 and 15 became insurable as from September, 1934, and the estimated numbers of those ages insured at July, 1935, were 517,000 boys and 411,000 girls. The numbers of these ages recorded as unemployed at 24th June, 1935, were 14,405 boys and 13,537 girls. The latest date for which a more detailed age analysis of the insured population is available is July, 1932, when a special inquiry, on a sample basis, was made, the results of which are published on page 314 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for September, 1933. Detailed particulars of the ages of persons registered as unemployed at 13th May and 4th November, 1935, will be found on pages 42 and 43 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February, 1936. As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid that it is too late to include the above table in the next issue of the

annual report of the Ministry of Labour, but I will consider whether the figures can be given in the next issue of the Abstract of Labour Statistics.

TRADING ESTATES.

Mr. STOREY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the important industrial area of Wearside is unrepresented on the board of the North End Trading Estate Company, which will choose the site of the proposed estate; and whether he will make representations to the Commissioner for Special Areas for the appointment of a director representative of Wearside interests before the choice of site is considered?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The directors of tile Trading Estate Company have been chosen solely with regard to their experience and qualifications for launching and developing the scheme. It


would not have been possible to provide representation for the numerous areas and interests which might be directly or indirectly concerned with the activities of the company without increasing the number of directors to a degree which would have affected the chances of successfully launching this enterprise, and my right hon. Friend therefore regrets that he is unable to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. STOREY: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that the board of directors would do their work better if they were not representative of one district, but of the whole of the districts, and does he realise that the directors are representative of Tyneside?

Mr. RITSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a population of 300,000 catered for by the Employment Exchange in Sunderland; that there are nearly 30,000 unemployed; and does he not think that it is very hard that a town of that size cannot be represented on the board?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The answer to both those questions is that the members of the board have been selected for their general business qualifications to undertake this difficult work, and no endeavour has been made to give specific representation to any particular area.

Mr. WHITELEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the area may be so large that one trading estate may not meet the full requirements, and that it may be necessary to have an additional estate with extra representation dealing with the particular locality?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am encouraged to find that the hon. Member attaches so much importance to trading estates, and that, if I am allowed to have an additional trading estate, there will be no objection to it being set up.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the number of the insured unemployed in Sunderland is 39.4, South Shields 43.9, Jarrow 47.4, and Baldon 40.6, he is prepared to advise the North-east Development Board to choose a site for a trading estate in the centre of this particular area?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The selection of a site for the trading estate is a matter for the board of directors of the company which is bring formed to organise the estate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SKILLED CRAFTSMEN.

Mr. WILSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information to indicate the extent to which the shortage of skilled craftsmen is due to the increased mechanisation of industry; and, if not, whether he will endeavour to obtain it?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Department has no precise information as to the extent of the influence of increased mechanisation upon the supply of skilled craftsmen, and I doubt if it would be possible to obtain any, in view of the difficulty of tracing the effect of increased mechanisation among the many and varied factors which determine the supply of and demand for labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEAVY PACKAGES (WEIGHT MARKING).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government to ratify the 1929 Convention on the marking of weights on heavy packages; and whether he is aware that it has been ratified by 32 States?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: His Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the principle underlying this Convention, but differences in its application have arisen among some of the States that have ratified it. In order to facilitate ratification by His Majesty's Government the question of the steps to be taken to ensure uniformity in the application of the Convention has been under discussion and is being further examined but no conclusion has yet been reached. It will be realised that the obligations involved in the Convention cannot be made effective in this country without legislation.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when some decision is likely to be reached in view of the years which have gone by since it was signed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am afraid that I can give the hon. Member no date.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE TELEPHONE OPERATORS (SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. EDE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the report of a discussion at the South Shields County Borough Council, which has been submitted to him, on the rate of pay of civilian telephone operators at the borough police headquarters; what is the maximum rate fixed by his Department for such work; if he is aware that the proposed rate is substantially below the standard rate for the area; and if he will take such action as will indicate that he is prepared to recognise the payment of the local standard rate in any claim for grant from the police authority?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir; but my right hon. Friend sees no reason why he should not agree to the proposed rate of pay submitted to him by the responsible local authority. The work done by civilians employed in different police offices varies; my Department have not had occasion to fix any maximum rate of pay, and I know of no standard rate applicable to this particular ease.

Mr. EDE: If it can be established that there is a standard rate for this area, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. LLOYD: If the hon. Member can give us any information we will certainly consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware there is at present in Wormwood Scrubs Prison, boys' wing, a lad under 14 years of age; what is the offence for which he is confined; what are the circumstances under which he was sent to prison; and will he give the numbers of boys under 15 and between 15 and 16, respectively, who have been sent to prison during the last six months?

Mr. LLOYD: One boy who was subsequently found to be under 14 was sent on remand for one night on 10th March to Wormwood Scrubs boys' prison, the court certifying, as required by Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, that he was too unruly to be safely

committed to a remand home. He was charged with two larcenies and housebreaking. The number of boys under 15 received in prisons in England and Wales during the last six months is six, and the number between 15 and 16 is 32, the requisite certificate under Section 33 having been given in each case by the court concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (POLICE COURT PROCEDURE).

Mr. GROVES: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the practice in police courts that during prosecutions of motorists for alleged offences against the Road Traffic Act witnesses for the defence are excluded from the court while preceding defendants and witnesses give evidence, but all police witnesses are allowed in court throughout; and whether he will take steps with a view to the discontinuance of this practice?

Mr. LLOYD: The question whether witnesses for the prosecution or the defence should remain out of court until they are called to give evidence is one for the court to decide, and my right hon. Friend has no authority in the matter.

ROAD SURFACE EXPERIMENTS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: asked the Minister of Transport whether there is within easy access of the House of Commons, so that Members may inspect it, an example of the new thin road carpet which his engineers hope will provide a durable non-skid surface; and of what materials it chiefly consists?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): For the specifications I cannot do better than refer my hon. Friend to "Experimental Work on Roads, 1934," of which I am sending him a copy. The nearest site is the Oxford-Henley Road near Newnham Courtenay.

Mr. LYONS: Is an experiment now being carried out in Great George Street and is the experiment being made with British granite? Also, will the hon. and gallant Member ask the local authorites to consider the use of British granite in preference to any other?

Captain HUDSON: I think that question had better be put on the Paper.

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, DURHAM.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the urban councils of Consett, Benfieldside, and Leadgate have decided to postpone indefinitely their five-year road improvement programme, totalling the sum of £71,498, upon the ground that the grant of 50 per cent. of the cost offered is insufficient; and whether, in view of the fact that these are Special Areas where the burden of local rates is already excessive and where the necessity for such employment is most acute, he will recon sider his decision with a view to a more generous grant towards the scheme?

Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any decision to postpone the works submitted for his approval by the councils concerned. He has approved these works at the request of the councils for the invariable standard rate of grant. All the roads concerned are unclassified.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

LATE EMIL ALLARD.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now completed his inquiries in connection with the Allard murder case, with a view to ascertaining to what extent foreign persons engaged in illegal and criminal activities are able to journey backwards and forwards between this country and the Continent without the consent and knowledge of the proper authorities?

Mr. LLOYD: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to questions on this subject on 6th February.

CHARGE (CLERKENWELL POLICE COURT).

Sir C. CAYZER: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case in which Kurt Kosterlitz and Heinrich Carl Andersen were charged recently at Clerkenwell police court with landing in the United Kingdom without the leave of an immigration officer and of being in the country without a passport; and whether, in view of the statement of the police that they had failed to discover bow the two men came into the country, he proposes to institute a special inquiry into the matter?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir. The aliens in question informed the police that they arrived at London Docks as stowaways on a Danish ship from Denmark, having bribed a member of the crew to bring them across. The master of the ship and the crew have been interviewed, but deny having any knowledge of them. On being taken to the ship, neither of them was able to identify any member of the crew or to substantiate their story by indicating any satisfactory place of concealment where they might have hidden during the voyage. Further inquiries are being made.

NEW INDUSTRIES (FOREIGNERS).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Home Secretary the extent to which immigrant Jews have established new industries recently in this country and the number of British employés to whom work has been given?

Mr. LLOYD: It is not the practice of the Home Office to differentiate between a Jewish and any other foreign immigrant, whether he comes from a Continental or an extra-European port, and figures are not therefore available. If, however, the hon. Member has specially in mind refugees from Germany, it is estimated that during the past few years upwards of 200 enterprises covering a great variety of industries have been established in the United Kingdom by foreigners who have left that country for racial, religious or economic reasons, and that employment has been given directly to some thousands of British subjects.

Mr. MANDER: Would it be fair to say that the figure is between 6,000 and 7,000?

Mr. LLOYD: I could not say.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOLS (FOREIGN FILMS).

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Boad of Education the results of the experiments which have been made by the use of talking cinematograph films in schools; and what steps the board or the local education authorities take to ensure that correct English is used in such films?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The board are watching sympathetically experiments in the use both of sound films and silent films in schools, and they have no doubt that these experiments have demonstrated that talking films can be used with success. The hon. Member may rest assured that the important aspect of the matter which he raises in the second part of his question will not be lost sight of.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of these films are made in America?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that American expressions like "gotten" which cannot be found in any English dictionary, are used in these films?

HEALTH INSTRUCTION.

Mr. PALING: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps have been taken by the board to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Licensing, paragraph 699, that His Majesty's inspectors should inquire as to the extent to which instruction on the dangers of alcohol is carried out in the schools they visit; and can he present any return or report showing the results of the inquiries made?

Mr. STANLEY: The board's Handbook of Suggestions on Health Education contains a chapter on the hygiene of food and drink, which was revised after the publication of the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, and the board consider that a knowledge of its contents should be regarded as part of the necessary equipment of every teacher. His Majesty's inspectors have been instructed to pay particular attention to, and to report on, the health instruction given in schools, but I am unable to furnish a report such as the hon. Member desires.

FREE MEALS (CIRCULAR 1443).

Mr. HOLLAND: asked the President of the Board of Education (1) what progress is being made by local education authorities with regard to the board's recommendations in Circular 1443; the number of such authorities who fix an

income scale similar to that governing unemployment benefit; the number of authorities where the scale is less than the present unemployment benefit; and how many nutrition surveys have been conducted and with what result;
(2) how many local education authorities are operating the recommendations contained in the board's Circular 1443, with regard to the provision of food in public elementary schools to children who are in need of such; and in how many instances interim arrangements are in operation for the immediate feeding of children recommended for meals?

Mr. STANLEY: There are 233 local education authorities providing meals under Section 84 of the Education Act, 1921. I have no reason to suppose that local education authorities generally are not carrying out the recommendations of Circular 1443 including the provision of interim arrangements. The method of application of the income scales of local education authorities varies considerably, and it is difficult to make any exact comparison with the scales for unemployment assistance. As regards nutrition surveys, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on 6th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. HOLLAND: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman feels that certain economies exercised by many local authorities are equivalent to treating the circular with a measure of indifference and will he urge upon them the necessity of dealing with this matter?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that that is the case. The circular was drafted after consultation with local authorities, and I believe it represents the view of the great majority of them.

SOUTH-EAST TECHNICAL COLLEGE.

Mr. PARKER: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the arrangements sanctioned for a four-year course, with a commercial or technical bias developing in the last two years, at the new South-East Technical College, Dagenham, involve any change in the views of the Board of Education on the position and status of the selective central school?

Mr. STANLEY: The arrangements for a four-year course in the junior day school to be provided in the new South-East Technical College at Dagenham, have been approved by the Board for an experimental period of five years, having regard to the special circumstances of the area to be served. This proposal does not indicate any change in the Board's views as to the position and status of the selective central school.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.

Mr. EDE: asked the President of the Board of Education (1) the records. that are kept of the service in elementary schools of supplementary teachers; and the time that elapses after a first appointment before such record is ordinarily commenced;
(2) how many supplementary teachers at present employed in elementary schools are over 60 years of age; how many have more than 40 years' service; and how many are over 60 years of age and have over 40 years' service?

Mr. STANLEY: The Board have no records about supplementary teachers except quarterly returns of the number employed and an annual return of the total expenditure on such teachers. I regret therefore that I cannot give the hon. Member the information which he desires.

Mr. EDE: Are we to understand that no records are kept giving the names of supplementary teachers and that, therefore, one dismissed in the area of one authority as unsatisfactory might be employed elsewhere without the Board realising that he has turned up in another area?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that specific point in another question. He will realise that that is not the question on. the Paper.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: But is not this information available to the Board?

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: asked the President of the Board of Education for how many children accommodation is available in special schools for mentally defective children; and for how many accommodation was available 25 years ago?

Mr. STANLEY: There is accommodation available in special schools for 16,562 mentally defective children as compared with accommodation available in 1911 for 11,854.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is satisfactory progress considering the importance of the problem?

Mr. STANLEY: In a recent circular I issued I pointed out that there was a need for better residential accommodation for these children m certain areas, and I urged local authorities to make progress in the matter.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will arrange for the notification of defective children on leaving school to the mental deficiency authority?

Mr. STANLEY: Provision is made in Article 4 of the Mental Deficiency (Notification of Children) Regulations for the notification of mentally defective children due to leave special schools on or before attaining the age of 16. There is no power whereby local education authorities can notify children leaving other schools, but the Board have suggested that such children could be informally brought to the notice of the mental deficiency authorities for friendly supervision on a voluntary basis.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is the President of the Board looking aster this to see if it is carried out properly, because the information generally is that it is not carried out?

Mr. STANLEY: The whole question of closer co-operation is now under consideration by the local authorities.

INCOME TAX (TRAINING COLLEGE EXPENSES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that young men and women teachers who secured a loan from the education authority 10 meet training college expenses and ate repaying the loan at the rate of £26 per annum, are being charged Income Tax on this sum; and whether he will take steps to secure that allowance is made for this sum seeing that these teachers never actually receive the money?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): A loan granted by an education authority to a teacher in training is not part of the teacher's income and no Income Tax is charged upon it. The repayments of the capital are not deductions which under the general Income Tax law can be allowed in assessing the teacher's income.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation to allow shopkeepers to become voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts for the purpose of qualifying for the receipt of benefits, including medical, sickness, and disablement benefits?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer is in the negative. The new scheme which the Government have announced its intention of introducing will be limited to pensions insurance. The Government feel that the success of the new scheme would be jeopardised by the inclusion of health insurance, because the contribution required to provide the combined benefits would be so substantial as to make the scheme unacceptable to many persons who are anxious to secure the pensions benefits. I would remind the hon. Member that under the National Insurance 'Act, 1911, shopkeepers and other persons working on their own account had the opportunity of becoming voluntary contributors for health insurance purposes, but the option was withdrawn by the Act of 1918 because of the meagre response to the offer.

Mr. HENDERSON: Would it not be possible for the Government to assist this class of the community by making the contribution a smaller one, and would it not be far better to spend money in this direction than to spend it on battleships and cruisers?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that since the 1918 Act pensions have been added, and that the new Minister of Defence, when Attorney-General, made a statement urging the Government to institute a reform of this kind some time ago?

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that increased voluntary contributions by people regularly employed would increase the solvency of approved societies?

Sir K. WOOD: I have studied that. To-day I saw a deputation of people who are interested in the question, and who agreed with me that the necessary contribution would be so considerable that the pensions scheme would lose its attractions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINA- TION OF DEFENCE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister on which day will the Minister for Coordinating Defence answer questions in this House appertaining to his Department?

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister on which day questions addressed to the new Minister for Coordinating Defence should be set down for oral answer?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My right hon. Friend will answer questions on Wednesday.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Minister answers questions in the first group of Ministers who answer them?

Mr. RADFORD: Will a fourth question be permitted to hon. Members in view of this additional Minister?

Commander LO C KER-LAM PSON: asked the Prime Minister what salary the new Minister for Co-ordinating Defence will receive; whether he will have a separate office, and, if so, where; and whether time for a, Debate upon the appointment can be granted shortly?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Prime Minister the correct title of the new Minister to co-ordinate Defence; what is the salary attached to the office; and whether he can give any estimate of the probable cost of the staff attached to the appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the appropriate title would be Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The salary will be £5,000, and the Minister


will have accommodation in the offices of the Committee of Imperial Defence. At the outset his staff will consist of a civil servant of the rank of Principal Assistant Secretary and a private secretary. In addition, the Minister will be able to make use of the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Any further staff requirements must be left for consideration in the light of experience. I see no reason for special Debate, but there are, of course, the ordinary opportunities.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question as to the probable cost of the staff.

The PRIME MINISTER: I thought that my hon. Friend would have seen that that is quite impossible from what I stated. I gave him what the start is, and it must be a matter of some time, possibly months, before we can see what staff he will require. He will have whatever staff is adequate, and for this account will be made to the House in the Estimates.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: In view of the fact that this salary will not be included in this year's Estimates and this year's Consolidated Fund Bill, will it be necessary to introduce legislation specially to deal with it?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. There will be an estimate in the Estimates to be presented in the summer. An arrangement will be made to cover the intervening period, which will be covered by the Estimates introduced after Easter.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: On what Vote will it be carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Supplementary Estimate. I cannot say what Vote. It may be a single Vote.

Mr. GRIFFITH S: Will it be carried on the Dumbarton vote?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to provide Parliament with an early oppor-

tunity of discussing the report of the Broadcasting Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: As has already been stated, the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee are still under consideration by the Government, and the existing Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation does not expire until the end Of the present year. The Government cannot, at the present juncture, give special time for the discussion of the committee's report. Opportunities, however, for its discussion will arise in the normal course of business.

Mr. THURTLE: May I take it that the Prime Minister will ascertain the views of the House on this report before he puts forward the recommendations of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very anxious that the House should have every opportunity to give its views. It is a very important matter and one which could, of course, be raised at any time on the Post Office Vote, for instance, when the Estimates are introduced after Easter.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention was called to the fact that on the same day as this White Paper was presented to the House the British Broadcasting Corporation, which must have had the White Paper before the House received it, issued a report of its own attacking the White Paper, and whether he considers that that is a proper procedure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am told there is a question on the Paper about that.

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the observations by the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation on the report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1935; whether he is aware that printed copies of this statement were made available immediately after the publication of the report; whether he approved the course taken of allowing an interested party to consider the report and recommendations before they were made available to Parliament; and whether he will take action to prevent the spread of this practice in future?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Major Tryon): The Broadcasting Committee was a departmental committee appointed by my predecessor, and after they had submitted their signed report I considered it essential to consult the British Broadcasting Corporation, in order to facilitate the Government's consideration of certain recommendations of the committee. It must clearly be open to a Minister to consult any sources of information which he may consider valuable, before presenting to Parliament the report of a departmental committee appointed by him.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the House of Commons has the first right to see any report of a committee appointed in reply to the initiative of this House; secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this particular committee was of special importance because it affects the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the renewal of their charter, and that there have been previous occasions when, in connection with a Royal Commission, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking—in reference to the tithes question—that the precedent would not be followed in other reports?

Major TRYON: Obviously that was a departmental committee and not one appointed by this House, but the Government while considering the matter were entitled to obtain any information they could. We have taken the step of presenting the report to the House before we have finished Government consideration of it, because we wished the House to have it as soon as we could.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the fact that this report, according to the Postmaster-General's statement, was issued to the British Broadcasting Corporation for official purposes, does he consider it proper that the British Broadcasting Corporation should, on the same day that it was presented to the House, issue comments attacking this report?

Major TRYON: The British Broadcasting Corporation's comments appeared in the Press the next day—[HON. MEMBERS: "The same day" "In the six o'clock news"]—alongside the report as presented to this House, and there was in every morning paper a statement from the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The responsibility for furnishing these comments to the Press rests not with me but with the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation. On the other hand simultaneously in the Press there appeared comments from other parties who are financially interested in the matter.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that nobody in this House objects to the directors of the British Broadcasting Corporation issuing to the Press any comments they care to make upon the report, but that what we object to is that the report was handed to the directors of the British Broadcasting Corporation before it was brought to this House?

Major TRYON: My point is that the report was not handed to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their information but in order to consult the Corporation to obtain information which the Government wanted for their consideration of the report.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I put this matter to the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that this is the second time that complaints of this kind have been raised in the last few weeks, would he, in view of his position as Leader of the House, endeavour to discourage the continuance of this practice?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have had no notice of this question. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good -enough to give me notice of questions of this kind. I am not in a position to give a reply ex tempore.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (HOUSE OF LORDS).

Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to continue the present arrangement by which two of the Cabinet Ministers representing Defence Forces (the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Air) do not sit in the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not contemplating any change at present.

Mr. TINKER: Is the Prime Minister aware that by having two of the three Defence Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords he is, by implication, putting the House of Commons in an inferior posi-


tion? Will he not consider it from that aspect, because, after all, we are the voice of the people?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can never recognise any inferiority complex on the part of the House of Commons. I am quite aware that it is preferable to have a rather larger representation in this House, but it is not always feasible to do what one desires.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of having the heads of the chief spending Departments here?

The PRIME MINISTER: I appreciate it as much as my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Minister of Health the cost of making permanent the pensions of widows who lose their pension when their children attain the age of 16 and do not recover it until they are themselves 55 years of age?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: In view of the undoubted hardship which arises in many cases of this sort, will my right hon. Friend give this matter most serious consideration with a view to introducing legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL AREAS (SCHEMES, EXPENDITURE).

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that a large proportion of capital expenditure in the Special Areas has been incurred for the purpose of relieving unemployment and the provision of houses as urged by the Government, the Government are prepared, in keeping with General Election pledges, to grant such relief as will meet interest charges upon capital raised in respect of the non-trading services?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The cost of schemes for the relief of unemployment and the provision of houses in the Special Areas, including interest charges in respect of the capital expended, is already largely met out of Exchequer subsidies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

FEVER HOSPITAL, SUTTON, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. MUFF: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the communication sent to him with regard to the recent case of scarlet fever at the Evan Fraser Fever Hospital al, Sutton, East Yorkshire, which has resulted in the disablement of a girl five years old; and will he make inquiries into the treatment of this case and also as to the structural suitability of the hospital?

Sir K. WOOD: I have considered the communication sent to me by the hon. Member about this cage and am making inquiries. When these are complete I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

RIVER CHESS (POLLUTION).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Lord Chesham and another versus the RUCKS Council in which an injunction, with damages and costs, was granted restraining the council from polluting the River Chess with matter from a sewage farm; what were the legal costs incurred by the council; and whether he proposes to take any action against the council respecting the pollution of the river?

Sir K. WOOD: I presume the hon. Member refers to an action brought against the Chesham Urban District Council. The costs of the council amounted to £13,596, 1s. 6d. Works which should obviate the pollution of the river have now been carried out by the council.

MILK DESIGNATIONS.

Mr. PORRITT: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that producer-retailers of grade A milk have large stocks of bottles and other vessels marked in accordance with previous orders; and whether, if there is any change in milk designations, he will consider allowing adequate compensation for any loss incurred by the enactment of such new regulations?

Sir K. WOOD: I propose so to frame the new order as to allow a sufficient period in which to use up stocks of bottle caps and other labels complying with the existing regulations. I do not in these circumstances consider that any


provision for the payment of compensation is necessary.

Mr. PORRITT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some farmers have as much as two years' supply of bottles on their hands?

Sir K. WOOD: I am endeavouring to meet the situation.

Mr. PORRITT: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make any further statement as to the present position of the discussions affecting the suggested alteration of milk designations?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a final statement on this subject.

Mr. PORRITT: asked the Minister of Health whether there is a uniform standard of qualification throughout the country in respect of granting Grade A licences; and, if so, whether there is any special reason why the proportion of accredited producers should vary so much in different counties?

Sir K. WOOD: The prescribed conditions for Grade A producers' licences are the same throughout the country. I am not aware of any reason why the proportion of accredited producers should vary substantially between different counties, and if my hon. Friend has any reason to suppose that some authorities are not adopting suitable standards in the granting of licences and will give me the necessary particulars, I shall be happy to make inquiries.

Mr. PORRITT: Is it a fact that in some counties the medical officers of health grant licences and in others the sanitary officers?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend has any information to give me I shall be glad to have it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accredited producers procedure is not dependent on Grade A?

BURNING PIT-HEAPS.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the injurious effects to health and property from burning pit-heaps, he is prepared, either through the Commissioner for Special Areas or by making a direct

grant, to assure the funds necessary to deal with this problem?

Sir K. WOOD: There are no funds at my disposal out of which a grant could be made for this purpose. Any proposal for a grant out of the funds available to the Commissioner would be a matter for his consideration.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the jobs that the Commissioner was appointed to do, and why is he not getting on with his job?

CREAM AND ICE CREAM.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to take any steps to fix a legal standard for cream and for ice cream, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: This matter cannot be dealt with without further legislation. I have the general question of standards for food under consideration in connection with the report of the Departmental Committee on the composition and description of food, but I regret that I cannot make any statement on the subject at present.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to the recommendations of the first Milk Reorganisation Committee on cream standards?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (COTTON WORKERS).

Mr. TINKER: asked the Minister of Health whether he is giving further consideration to the application made to him by the deputation from the Lancashire County Council asking him that the Relief Regulation Order of 1930 should be relaxed so as to allow relief to be given to those workers in the Lancashire cotton trade who, when they work a full week, get less than 25s.?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The decision conveyed in my letter to the county council, of which the hon. Member has a copy, was reached after full consideration of the representations made by the deputation.

Mr. TINKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps at all to improve the position of the cotton


workers in Lancashire, a great percentage of whom have only 30s. for a full week?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: asked the Minister of Health what special encouragement is given by his Department at the present time to the erection in various parts of the country of an adequate supply of small and cheap cottages for housing old persons, without children, in receipt of old age pensions, to enable them to avoid being sent to public institutions?

Sir K. WOOD: In the last memorandum on housing issued to local authorities in October last, I drew their attention to the advantage of including in housing schemes special homes for aged persons. Since 1st March, 1935, I have approved the erection of 5,252 aged persons' cottages by 224 local authorities.

Sir PERCY HURD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department's reference to this matter consisted of one line and three-quarters in the memorandum, and cannot the special attention of local authorities be drawn to it?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope that the importance of the Ministry's circulars will not be judged by the number of words in a paragraph.

Mr. DAY: May I ask if the number of applications before the right hon. Gentleman has improved?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member's desire for that information will give him an opportunity of putting down a question.

Mr. WHITELEY: Will the Government grant subsidies to local authorities who are prepared to erect houses for aged workers?

Sir K. WOOD: I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION STATISTICS.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health if he can furnish an estimate of the number of persons aged

16 to 64 years in the middle of each of the years 1929, 1931 and 1935 in Great Britain and in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures for England and Wales in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards Scotland and Northern Ireland, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Secret tries of State for Scotland and Home Affairs.

Following are the figures:


Estimated population aged 16 to 64 inclusive.


—
Males.
Females.
Persons.


Mid-1929
12,526,290
13,932,870
26,459,160


Mid-1931
12,741,200
14,095,800
26,837,000


Mid-1935
12,978,100
14,288,600
27,266,700

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Gloucestershire Agricultural Committee recently expressed its concern at the serious shortage of cottages for agricultural workers in the villages; and what action is being taken to remedy this shortage?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In addition to the substantial programmes which are now being carried out by the local authorities under the Act of 1930, such houses Is are found to be necessary for the abatement of overcrowding under the Act of 1935 will be built, and as the h m. Member is no doubt aware a special subsidy is available under the Act or houses required to relieve overcrowdiig among the agricultural population.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Health whether any cottages for agricultural workers have been erected in Bishop's Cannings and Hooton, Wiltshire, since 1883 arid 1886, respectively; and whether the erection of any new cottages is contemplated

Sir K. WOOD: Eight houses have been erected in the parish of Bishops Cannings under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, with the special Exchequer subsidy provided for houses in


an agricultural parish. I am not aware of any proposals for further buildings in this parish or that it is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RANELAGH.

Mr. W. ASTOR: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the acquisition of Ranelagh as a public open space or whether he will make a grant towards its preservation as a private open space?

Sir K. WOOD: The acquisition of land for public open space is a matter for the local authorities, and as my hon. Friend is aware the Barnes Borough Council have decided that reservation of the central 30 acres of Ranelagh is sufficient. I am always prepared to make suggestions to local authorities where I think that additional open space is desirable, but I am not aware that there is in this part of London any public need for a larger reservation commensurate with the heavy expenditure which purchase of the whole ground would involve. I am not prepared to suggest any contribution from public funds towards the preservation of Ranelagh for use as a private club.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Playing Fields Association to get some assistance for these poor people who are losing their playing ground?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR DEBT.

Mr. SILVERMAN: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount borrowed for War expenditure during the years 1914 to 1918; how much of the loan remains unpaid; and what is now the yearly amount required for interest on the outstanding debt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible to isolate the figures for War debt, but full particulars of the annual changes in the National Debt since 1914, together with the cost of interest on the outstanding debt in the year ended 31st March, 1935, will be found in the current National Debt Return (Command Paper No. 4996). I would, however, remind the hon. Member that, for reasons which have frequently been explained to Parliament, a comparison of nominal

totals of dead-weight debt at different times is apt to be misleading.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to say what was the grand total of the War Loan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have referred the hon. Member to the paper in which he will find the information.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey that it was impossible to isolate the War Loan from the general National Debt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is correct. It is not possible to isolate the debt which is attributable solely to the War.

COMMERCIAL ROAD TRANSPORT (TAXATION).

Mr. HEPWORTH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Salter Committee recommended that the total taxation payable by commercial road transport in this country should not exceed £23,500,000 per annum, and that the revenue obtained from this source is now substantially in excess of that figure, he will consider how he can remit a portion of such taxation at an early date with the object of assisting industry to pay greater profits, to the ultimate benefit of the country and the revenue from other forms of taxation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask my hon. Friend to await my Budget statement.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge not to pinch from the Road Fund any more money this year than he did last year?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give an estimate of the yearly cost of giving a pension of 10s. per week to the wives of all old age pensioners who have reached the age of 65 years, although the wife may not have reached that age?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I estimate that the cost would be £6,500,000 a year, rising to £8,000,000 a year in 10 years' time. This estimate does not include the further extensions which would appear to be inevitable if


the proposal were adopted and which would probably more than double the expenditure.

PENSIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate number of persons in Great Britain who are covered by superannuation or pension schemes, including civil servants, police officers, teachers, local government officers, and officials of every kind?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of persons covered by Superannuation or pension schemes in the Civil Service on the 1st April, 1935, the latest date for which figures are available, were as follow:



Non-Industrial.
Industrial.


Post Office
134,883
19,429


Other Departments
96,313
11,364

The numbers so covered in the Defence Services (uniformed personnel) and of police and teachers are approximately as follow:


Navy
36,484


Army
42,480


Air Force
8,739


Police
64,074


Teachers
228,600

I regret that similar information as regards local government officers is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSIONS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether seeing that Members of Parliament only receive an annual sum for expenses necessarily incurred while carrying out their Parliamentary duties, he will consider, before introducing his forthcoming Budget, an optional pension scheme for Members of Parliament who have served one or more constituencies for 15 or 20 years or more and have attained 60 or 65 years of age, such optional pension to be paid only after ceasing membership of this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not feel able to entertain this suggestion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consult with Members of the House before finally making up his mind?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be pleased to have representations from any hon. Member who wishes to discuss the question of a retirement pension.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man who has served a long period in the House retires worse than penniless?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be happy to receive any representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new Ministries have been created since the War up to date; what are their names; and what is the estimated cost?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Since 1918 no new Ministries have been established but the following new Departments have been created:

Forestry Commission
Import Duties Advisory Committee
Commissioner for Special Areas
Unemployment Assistance Board.

In addition, the Dominions Office and the Ministries of Mines and Transport, which previously existed in nucleus as parts of other Ministries, were set up as separate Ministries. The hon. Member will find details of the present cost of these Departments set out in current Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BARLEY.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make in respect to further legislation to improve the present situation in the barley trade?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 25th February by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exechequer to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell).

RABBITS (WEST WALES).

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the damage done by rabbits in West Wales, where rabbit trapping is practised on a commercial scale; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to extend the provisions of Section 6 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, which prohibits tenant farmers from setting traps for rabbits in the open, so that a similar prohibition may be applied to all owners, occupiers, or users of agricultural land?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have had under consideration the question of the damage done by rabbits, but I cannot hold out hope that time will permit of the introduction in the near future of legislation. The complete prohibition of the use of steel traps in the open would not, of course, in itself necessarily reduce the damage caused by rabbits.

Mr. HOPKIN: If I submit a Bill to the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider the terms of it?

Mr. ELLIOT: I shall be glad to consider any representations from the hon. Member.

Major COLFOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the only way to reduce the rabbit pest is to make rabbit-catching a profitable occupation, and will he not endeavour to secure the prohibition of the importation of foreign rabbits?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: If a private Member's Bill is introduced on the lines of the one which previously passed this House, will the right hon. Gentleman give it favourable consideration?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will certainly give it my consideration, but I could not give any pledge in respect. to it.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider repealing the laws against poaching?

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that any steps taken by a farmer in West Wales to clear his own land of rabbits are rendered abortive by the incursion of rabbits from the neighbouring farms where commercial trapping takes place;

and what steps he will take to protect the farmer in these circumstances?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am, of course, aware of the difficulty experienced by farmers in controlling rabbits on their land when rabbits are numerous on adjoining properties. Bills to deal with this matter have been introduced into Parliament on a number of occasions without success, but as already stated, I cannot hold out hope of Parliamentary time being available in the near future for legislation on the subject.

Mr. HOPKIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making West Wales a special area for this purpose?

Mr. DENMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember Section 10 of the Corn Production Act, in which we attempted nearly 20 years ago to deal with this very matter?

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that commercial trapping of rabbits in the open in West Wales results in damage to domestic animals and game, kills off foxes, stoats, and weasels which normally keep the increase of rabbits in check, and leaves on the land a large stock of rabbits for breeding purposes for next year's trapping; and what steps he proposes to take to prohibit the commercial trapping of rabbits?

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the practice of using spring traps adopted by professional rabbit trappers who are employed by owners and occupiers of agricultural land. I am aware that the use of such traps sometimes results in injury to game and to domestic and wild animals other than rabbits, and their use is deprecated by the Ministry. Any prohibition would, however, require legislation, which, as I have already informed the hon. Member, will not be practicable at the present time.

SINGLE SERVICE CONTAINERS, LIMITED.

Mr. McGHEE: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Milk Marketing Board propose to take to recover amounts owing to the Board by Single Service Containers, Limited, of Wem, Shropshire?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHILINGER TREATMENT).

Sir F. FREMANTLE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether adequate experiments are being made in this country to check those in Northern Ireland on the Spahlinger vaccine for the prevention of tuberculosis in cattle; how long these experiments will take; and whether, if it be proved successful, he will take steps to secure its general adoption?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am in close touch with the work that has been and is being carried out in Northern Ireland in connection with the Spahlinger vaccine. The question of conducting tests with the vaccine in this country is under consideration. I am, however, not yet in a position to make a statement as to the scope or duration of any experimental work which may be undertaken.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: But is the right hon. Gentleman checking what is being done in Northern Ireland in this matter, which is of essential importance for our herds?

Mr. ELLIOT: As I said in the first sentence of my reply, I am taking very great interest in the work being carried out in Northern Ireland.

Mr. LEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has converted the farmers to this Spahlinger nonsense?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERMEN'S BOAT SHELTER, LYMPSTONE.

Mr. DREWE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now been able to recommend that the Lympstone fishermen's self-help scheme for providing a boat shelter should receive a grant from the Development Commission?

Mr. ELLIOT: The question of any recommendation by me to the Development Commission on the scheme referred to will not arise until application for a grant has been made to the Treasury by the promoters in accordance with the statutory procedure. This application, I understand, awaits the settlement of certain preliminary questions which are

under consideration by the parties concerned.

Mr. DREWE: In view of the amount of information which has already been supplied will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the details he requires which are outstanding?

Mr. ELLIOT: I shall be glad to discuss the point with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BUTTER (STOCKS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish an estimate of the stocks of butter at present available in this country; and what period of supply this represents?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE, (Mr. Runcirnan): According to the latest returns published by the Imperial Economic Committee the stocks of butter in cold store on 29th February, amounted to about 215,224 cwts., or rather more than one week's total consumption of butter. To this should be added an unknown quantity in transit inland or in private stores.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the Minister bring to the notice of the heads of the Fighting Services the amount of butter he has in hand?

PAPER AND CARDBOARD (IMPORTS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the continued increase in the importation of paper and cardboard; and whether, in view of the concessions given to these classes of imports in the trade agreements with Norway and Sweden, he will give the necessary notice for the termination of these agreements forthwith, in order that fresh arrangements may be made to safeguard the paper industry of Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am unable to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 17th February on the subject of trade negotiations with Norway and Sweden.

Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a trade agreement is being negotiated with Sweden?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is under consideration at the present moment, but no negotiations are being conducted at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

GREENOCK SHERIFFS COURT (SENTENCE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will grant the immediate release of a young Greenock mother whose children require her personal care and who, with her brother, was sentenced, in Greenock Sheriffs Court on Monday, 16th March, to 30 days' imprisonment on a charge of aiding a younger brother to join. the Cameron Highlanders while on leave from an approved school to which he had been sent by a juvenile court?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): My right hon. Friend is making inquiries into this case and will communicate his decision to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this woman has never been in trouble before, and that she has a baby eight months old needing attention, and that it is an urgent necessity that this mother should be able to care for her baby?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Those are facts into which inquiry is being made, and as soon as the report is received the matter will be given attention.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the urgency of the matter, and having regard to the fact that the parties were not legally represented in court, will he take steps to hurry matters more than the Scottish Office often does?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that attention was first drawn to this matter less than 48 hours ago, and I can assure the hon. Member that no time will be lost.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (MILK AND MEALS).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue instructions to all educational authorities in Scotland providing for the supply of milk and school-feeding to

children of school age on the same lines as those outlined for the guidance of educational authorities in England and Wales, in Circulars 1437 and 1443 of the Board of Education?

The LORD ADVOCATE: A circular dealing with the school milk schemes and with the general powers for feeding in schools was issued to all Scottish Education Authorities on 31st October, 1934. It drew special attention to the need for observation by school medical officers of the effects of the milk ration and to the requirements of children who, as a result of medical inspection or otherwise, are found to exhibit symptoms of under-nutrition. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular in question.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a meeting of representatives of Buekie Town Council and fishermen's representatives to consider schemes put forward by the Herring Industry Board; whether he is aware that a resolution was passed at this meeting declaring the loans scheme of the board to be impracticable and calculated to place serious additional burdens on the industry, and calling for Government assistance to assure fishermen a fair living pending the re-establishment of remunerative markets; and what steps the Government are taking to win such markets?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the steps which are being taken to improve markets for British herring, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Monday last to a question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Mr. T. Morris).

Mr. GALLACHER: In view of the terrible plight, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not take definite steps to relieve the situation now?

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer to which I referred, he will find particulars of what is being done in association with the Department of Overseas Trade for the purposes of opening up markets in Russia, Palestine, the United States and other countries.

Mr. GALLAGHER: I want to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention particularly to this matter, and to ask if he will not do something now for these fishermen while steps are being taken to open up markets here, there and in other places? Please will you do something now?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid that that does not arise out of this question. If the hon. Member will put down a separate question on that point, an answer will be given.

Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: Are the Scottish Office satisfied with the latest recommendations?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That does not arise out of this question. I would require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (GREAT BRITAIN-BELFAST).

Captain CRAWFORD BROWNE: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephone calls have passed between Belfast and Great Britain during the past six months; and what proportion of these were transmitted via the radio station at Ballygomartin?

Major TRYON: Approximately 60,000 telephone calls have been made from Belfast to Great Britain during the past six months; and of these about 19,000 were transmitted via the radio station at Ballygomartin.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (BOUNTY).

Major CARVER: asked the Secretary of State for War from what date the proposed Territorial bounty, comprising the £3 proficiency grant, the 10s. weapon training allowance, and 30s. for extra drills, will commence to be paid; and whether the additional travelling allowance will also commence from the same date?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The proficiency grant of £3 will be payable in 1936 to all those men attending camp and performing the regulated number of drills. The grant of 10s. for weapon training will also be payable, as usual, in 1936. Owing to the fact that the current training year has ad-

vanced so far as to prevent a number of personnel from taking advantage of the concession, the grant of 30s. for extra drills will not come into operation until the training year beginning 1st November next. The travelling allowance for 50 drills for trained men in place of the present total (which varies from 20 to 40 drills according to the arm of the service) will, however, be payable during the current training year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): It is due to the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) that I should give the House an explanation, and make him an apology, for something which I said yesterday in relation to the margarine ration. I much regret that in a supplementary reply I spoke under a misapprehension on an important point. Having now had an opportunity of verifying the history of this matter, I find that margarine first appeared as a definite item in the soldier's ration in 1921. This practice has continued under all Governments since that date, including the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929–31. I should perhaps explain that the standard ration for the Royal Air Force follows that for the Army, for which reason questions relating to the ration have in the past primarily been addressed to the War Office. I think it fair to say, in this connection, that the Labour Government had various ration questions under review during their term of office, and from replies given to questions in the House in 1930 and 1931, addressed to the War Office, it is only possible to infer that they were aware of the composition of the ration and that margarine was a regulated issue, but saw no reason to make arty change. The actual statement I made, however, ascribing the introduction of margarine into the ration to the Labour party when in office, was clearly erroneous, and I should like to tender the hon. Member a sincere apology for my mis-statement.

Mr. LEACH: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to thank the right hon. Baronet for his exceedingly char and frank statement, and to assure him that I accept it fully and in the same spirit in which he makes it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can state when he is likely to be in a position to announce the Debate on Foreign Affairs in this House, and whether he can tell us the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first question, I am most anxious to give all the information possible at the earliest moment. I hope it will be possible to make a full statement tomorrow. The business for next week will be:
Monday.—Report and Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill.
Tuesday.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday will be the last of private Members' Motion days.

Thursday.—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

Friday.—Private Members' Bills.

On any day, if there is time, other business will be taken, including consideration of Additional Import Duties Orders, Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on the Reports of Supply of 16th, 17th and 12th March may be taken after Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 119.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hen. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Albery, I. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Allan, U.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(Wst'r S.G'gs)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. H. S.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Guy, J. C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Assheton, R.
Cranborne, viscount
Hannah, I. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Critchley, A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harvey, G.


Balniel, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cross, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hepworth, J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bennett, Capt. Sir E, N.
De la Bère, R.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hudson, R. S. (Soutbport)


Blair, Sir R.
Donner, P. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hunter, T.


Blindell, Sir J.
Drewe, C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Jackson, Sir H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duggan, H. J.
James, Wing-commander A. W.


Brass, Sir W.
Dunglass, Lord
Jarvls, Sir J. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Joel, D. J. B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eckersley, P. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kimball, L.


Bull, B. B.
Entwistle, C. F.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Burghley, Lord
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Burg In, Dr. E. L.
Everard, W. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fildes, Sir H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Leckie, J. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cary, R. A.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Furness, S. N.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Levy, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lewis, O.


Channon, H.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lindsay, K. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Granville, E. L.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarke, F. E.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.




Lyons, A. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Porritt, R. W.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton
Storey, S.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Radford. E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


MacDonald. Fit. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)


McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


McKie, J. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sutcliffe, H.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Rayner, Major R, H.
Tasker, Sir R. J.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tate, Mavis C.


Magnay, T.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Making, Brig.-Gen. E.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Titchfield Marquess of


Maxwell, S. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wakefield, w. w.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Moreing, A. C.
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Morgan, R. H.
Salt, E. W.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sandys, E. D.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Munro, P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wells, S. R.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Savery, Servington
Wickham Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Scott, Lord William
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Peake, O.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Smithers Sir W.



Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Sir George Penny and Lieut-


Pilkington, R.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Colonel Sit A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Riley, B.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Amman, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rowson, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sexton, T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Strauss, O. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P


Dobbie, W.
MacNeill. Weir, L.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mander. G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marklew, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Messer, F.
White, H Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson. Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Paling, W.
Woods, C. S. (Finsbury)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Parker, H. J. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Gibbins, J.
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Quibell, J. D.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Resolutions agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Public Meeting Act, 1908, by extending its operation to meetings held during an. election for local government office," presented by Mr. Lyons; supported by Mr. Croom-Johnson, Mr. Petherick, Mr. H. G. Williams, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Raikes, Major Braithwaite, Captain Strickland, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Everard, Mr. Holdsworth, and Mr. Bracewell Smith; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North East Lindsey Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Saint Albans Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the provisions of the Coinage Offences Acts, 1861 and 1935, and of the Counterfeit Medal Act, 1883." [Coinage Offences Bill [Lords.]

SHOPS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Drewe; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Astor.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [16th MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1936.

1. "That 99,095 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 888 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,572,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course cf payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,450,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

5. "That a sum not exceeding £3,219,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray tho Expense of Non-Effectice Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers, which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,276,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services—(Naval and Marine)—Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,229,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, and other Non-Effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.2 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: While this Vote does not deal with the general question raised in the Estimates, it does deal with the most important part. There can be no Navy without men, and the Vote deals exclusively with the number of men who in the opinion of the Admiralty will be required to man the Navy in the next financial year. It can quite rightly be said that Vote A gives an indication of the tendency of the Admiralty concerning the strength of the Navy generally. In the very long Debate we had on Monday the point was not brought out that 1936 is not merely one of the most important years but is the most important year as far as Naval armaments are concerned, for at the end of this year we shall see the expiration of the only two Naval Agreements that we have been able to negotiate up to the present, the Washington Agreement which has been in operation for 15 years and the London Agreement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and the then Government negotiated in 1930.
I think it can be said, as far as Vote A and naval expenditure generally are concerned, that the taxpayers of this country and in all countries which can be regarded as naval powers, were saved a considerable amount of money by those Agreements. Vote A, as I have said, gives an indication of the very large increase that is proposed. Of course it is not the most costly Vote; we are not dealing with money, but with men. But men are absolutely essential to the manning of ships and the Vote raises the whole question of naval policy. It represents the first stage of the race in naval armaments. The total Estimate for the Navy in 1932 was £52,000,000. At the present time it amounts to within a few hundred thousand pounds of £70,000,000. There we see an indication of the tendency of the Board of Admiralty in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary, in his defence as far as personnel was concerned, said that these men were absolutely essential. My right hon. Friend, after that had been said, stated that if the policy of the Admiralty had not been changed, and that if larger ships instead of smaller ships were not built, in accordance with the London Naval Agreement, we could have carried on without this


very large increase. Is it realised that there is an increase of nearly 10,000 men compared with 1932?
I think it true to say that Vote A and the Estimates generally do not give a true picture of the position. The statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the possibility of an increase in the personnel exceeding 6,000 by March, 1937, is an indication that even the provision made in the Supplementary Estimate and in the Naval Estimates is not a true picture of Admiralty policy; and we think it would be very much better for the Noble Lord now to indicate to the House the number of men in excess of the 6,000 increase which will be required for the manning of the ships. Let one thing be made quite clear. We on this side of the House do not object to suitable drafting arrangements for the men of the Navy. Nor do we object to sufficient shore leaves. I feel sure that the Noble Lord will not charge my colleagues who were responsible for the reduction in the personnel of the Navy which took place between 1929 and 1931 with being unmindful of the requirements of drafting and shore leave. This matter was carefully considered. We did discover a large number of supernumeraries, as has been said, and we are inclined to think that Vote A indicates that there is likely to be in future a number of these supernumeraries again.
To justify the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough and the Board of Admiralty in 1929–31 it is only necessary to mention that in 1932–33 the Board of Admiralty increased the number of the personnel by only a few hundreds. But to-day the Estimates provide for an increase of no less than 10,000 compared with 1933. It is fitting to give a few figures. I do not know that anyone will question the statement that we had a very efficient Navy in 1913. It was kept up to a pitch of efficiency then because something was expected. In 1913 the total number of officers and men under Vote A was 139,000. We had then 62 battleships and battle cruisers, 116 cruisers, 297 destroyers and 64 submarines. The Estimate that we are now considering provides for nearly 100,000 officers and men. But that is not all; we are promised more. Yet instead of having 62 battleships and battle cruisers, we

have now 15; instead of 116 cruisers we shall have by the end of March, 1937, only 54 cruisers; and instead of having 297 destroyers we shall have 169. Of course there are the seaplane and aircraft carriers and the sloops.
I should be the last not to recognise the changes which have taken place in the control of ships since that date. In 1913, of the 139,000 personnel some 40,000 were stoker ratings. Owing to the change from coal firing to oil firing the number of stoker ratings has been reduced from 40,000 to 16,000 or 18,000. That in itself accounts for a reduction of 22,000 in the personnel of the Navy. I do not want to go back only to 1913. Let us compare 1926 with 1936. In 1926 the number of Flag and commissioned officers was 5,008. In 1936 the number is 5,800, or an increase of 792. There is an increase in the number of subordinate officers from 629 to 970, and in warrant officers there is an increase of 48. The total increase of all officers is, therefore, no less than 1,191. An interesting fact is that the increase in the number of petty officers, seamen and so on, is only 1,400, that is from 74,500 to 75,900. That in itself makes us look at this question of the personnel with a certain amount of apprehension.
I am not going to make any charge against the Naval side of the Board of Admiralty, but it is very interesting to note that the May Commission in their Report said that they were not prepared to trust the Board of Admiralty in connection with the question of the desiging or cost of battleships and the Report definitely recommended that before proceeding with the replacement of the Battle Fleet or any increase in the Navy an independent commission should be appointed to go into the question of the design and cost of battleships. In the opinion of myself and my hon. Friends a committee of inquiry to go into the question of the personnel of the Navy would be well worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) put some very pertinent questions on Monday. The Noble Lord did not have time to reply to them, and we should be obliged if he would deal to-day with the points that my hon. Friend raised.

4.16 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir ROGER KEYES: My hon. Friend the Member for


Aderdare (Mr. G. Hall) will always be remembered by the Navy with affectionate regard after his two years as Civil Lord but, if he were Member for North Portsmouth instead of Aberdare and had some hundreds of women constituents who spend the greater part of their lives in being grass widows, he would not be quite so hard-hearted. On this Vote I should like to refer to the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve. It is an admirable Service, and Londoners whose business takes them along the Embankment pass the old sloop "President" flying the White Ensign which is the headquarters arid drill ship of the London Division. All the great seaports have similar drill ships—in Belfast Lough, on the Clyde, at Dundee for Edinburgh and the Forth of Firth, in the Mersey and the Tyne, at Bristol, and for the Sussex coast at Newhaven. There is immense friendly rivalry between the various divisions and people who live in their neighbourhood have good reason to be proud of the splendid young men who give up their leisure to at themselves for service with the Navy. The personnel is constituted on lines similar to the Royal Navy in regard to the proportion of officers and men, which is based on the complement of a cruiser or battleship. There is great competition to join this corps d'elite as officers but vacancies are few, and an enormous number of young men who have the call of the sea in their blood can only join by going to the lower deck, where they are trained to work the guns and torpedoes and carry out other services in men of war. Among these young men there are great numbers who take their leisure in their own or their friends' yachts who would be very willing to serve in the auxiliary patrol, but it does not appeal to them to go on to the lower deck for general Naval service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had this point in mind when he was First Lord and the matter was under the consideration of the Admiralty when the War broke out and thousands of men were wanted for the auxiliary patrol.
At the end of the War there were some thousands of Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers whose hardihood, seamanship and devotion had played such a great part in defeating the submarine menace. In the last year of the War I had under my command a hundred of

these officers drawn from all walks of life—architects, artists, stockbrokers, business men of all sorts. They were splendid young men whose one idea was to serve their country at sea. The crews of their vessels only numbered about 350—about seven men to two officers—and included wireless telegraphists, motor mechanics and seamen and petty officers. I mention this to show the disproportion between officers and men. The rolls of the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Order and the medals for conspicuous gallantry and distinguished service record the names of a great many of these splendid young men. After the War the Volunteer Auxiliary Patrol was disbanded. I suggest that the Admiralty might well consider the reorganisation of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve to include a good proportion of officers and men for service in the auxiliary patrol.
There is another question in regard to the Naval Reserves that I should like to mention. The Newfoundland Royal Naval Reserve which was composed of fishermen who spend their lives in the cod schooners and sealing in the Arctic. They are splendid, hardy people, the finest small-ship seamen in the world. They did splendid service in the War. Many will remember the armed merchantmen of the Tenth Cruiser Squadron which were engaged in the German blockade and patrolled hundreds of miles from land in Mid-Atlantic. Their duties necessitated boarding suspicious vessels in all sorts of weather. These Newfoundland fishermen to a great extent formed the boats' crews who carried out this arduous and dangerous work. The re-establishment of the Newfoundland. Reserve would be of very great benefit to the Service and to Newfoundland which is going through hard times. It is our oldest colony and it breeds a splendid seafaring race. It would not cost very much to re-establish the force. It means only a small drill ship at St. John's and it is well worth considering. If, unhappily, we are ever at war again the seafarers of Great Britain will have to play a great part in defeating the submarine menace. Our fishing population is shrinking, and in this connection I should like to read a few words from a letter from a very distinguished naval officer who spends his leisure trying to help the Lifeboat Service:
I visit the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland and find that most of the fishermen


are oldish men. They are not being replaced by their sons, whose educational advantages lead them to prefer shore occupations. They do not like the long hours at sea and they like to keep dry and warm.
Every possible encouragement that we can give to seafarers who can stand wet and cold is all to the good, and I hope my suggestion will be favourably considered by the Admiralty.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to raise a matter that does not bear directly on the Vote. I do not take any exception to the Vote itself because I recognise that we must have an efficient Navy. What I take exception to is that this document is signed by a number of gentlemen not one of whom is here to meet charges that may be made from this side of the House. I had a question to the Prime Minister to-day bearing on this point, but a grievance of this kind cannot be dealt with by a question and answer. To my mind it is a slight on the procedure of the House of Commons to have to discuss Service Votes without the chief man in charge being present in person.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Report stage of a Vote we have to confine ourselves very strictly to the substance of the Vote itself.

Mr. TINKER: I shall be glad if you will tell me, for my guidance, if there is any other opportunity open to me to voice my protest?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can take the opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on the salary of the Prime Minister.

Mr. TINKER: I will leave it over till then.

4.29 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate referred to the increase in personnel. He realises, as we all do, the great difficulty when there is a shortage in personnel—wastage taking place at the top in petty officers and skilled men and new entrants at the bottom, boys taking five years to be trained before they are available as skilled men. The construction of the ships takes a much shorter

time than the training of the boys. There is already a serious shortage of personnel.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: No.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that he is quite incorrect in that interjection and that there is a serious shortage of personnel. We are to have an increase in these Estimates and I would like to ask how many men of this number will be required to fill up the gap which already exists and to bring the total up to the figure required to meet the existing position. Further, how many of this number will be available for ships, the construction of which is being accelerated, and which will shortly be put into commission. I would also ask whether, when those claims have been met, there will be any left for further new construction. Another question which I put to my noble friend is whether he is aware that ratings are now being brought in from outside who are not active service ratings.
I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) speak about the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the men from Newfoundland who in the past have been among the best in the service. The men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve have proved by their service during the War and at other times how excellent they are. Are any of them being brought into the service to meet the existing situation? If not, it might be worth while to consider that method of overcoming this very serious shortage. As regards the increase in the number of boys, can my Noble Friend tell me where these boys are to be accommodated and trained before they are sent to sea? Is there sufficient accommodation in existing establishments? As regards officers, I would also like to know whether all the officers who are being brought back into the service are ex-naval officers. There will soon be a shortage in the junior ranks. How is that shortage to be met? Will it be met by the increase proposed in these Estimates or will it be necessary for the Admiralty to bring back into the service some of the officers who have been retired under the various retirement schemes? If any officers are to be brought back, I hope we shall have an assurance that they will be ex-naval officers.

4.34 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): It is like old times to find oneself replying to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on these Estimates. I assure him that in the part of my speech on Monday last which dealt with personnel, I suffered from an excess of frankness rather than from any insufficiency of it. It was not necessary for me to say that we proposed an increase which was rather larger than that in the White Paper but I desired to be perfectly frank and to let the House know of that difference between the proposals as shown in the White Paper and the proposals which we intend to carry out. I can also assure the hon. Member and his colleagues that there is, definitely, a shortage of personnel. We have had difficulties both in regard to the pool and in regard to drafting arrangements and it has also been found from experience that we require increased complements in the ships. Part of the increased number required is due to the fact that we have had to build larger cruisers. Instead of cruisers of the Leander class we have had to build ships of the Southampton class which need more men.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Have we no reserve on which we can draw to meet that situation? Have the numbers been so low that there has been no reserve to meet the case of the building of these bigger ships?

Lord STANLEY: That is really beside the point. I am talking about the reasons why we want this permanent increase. It is because we want larger complements for the ships. I may take this opportunity of dealing with some of the other points which were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). He asked how many of the extra men in this Estimate were required to meet the existing situation. I said in my speech on Monday that the additional number for which we are now asking is required for ships that are either built or building. The number required for the new construction—for the increase in the number of cruisers—will partly be met by the increase which we propose to bring in as a Supplementary Estimate. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked whether any other men are being brought in. I gave him a full answer in the speech which I made on

the Supplementary Estimate for 1935. I then gave him details of the 3,500 extra men brought into Vote A at the end of last year.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: But these new entries will not be ready to man the ships for another five years.

Lord STANLEY: I think they will be ready in a much shorter time. I would again ask my hon. and gallant Friend to read the speech which I made on the Supplementary Estimate already mentioned and also my speech introducing the Estimates. If he still has any difficulty on the subject I shall be only too happy to discuss the matter with him. The main point of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare was a comparison of the personnel in the years 1913, 1926 and 1936 with particular reference to the proportion of officers in each of those years. I do not think we need take the actual figures very closely because, unless we are all working on the same basis, our calculations are of course bound to differ.
I would say, however, that there is a very slight difference between the proportion of officers to personnel in 1926 and the corresponding proportion in 1936 and the figures which I propose to take are those relating to 1913 and to the current year. The figures for 1913 according to Vote A were 146,000, but that includes a large number of people like coastguards and various other services which are not included to-day. I am told that for purposes of fair comparison we ought to take a figure of 118,000 for 1913. The figure for this year would be 85,600. The main reason why we want more men in the present year in comparison with the size of our Fleet, than we did in pre-war days, is, largely, the fact that in pre-war days a larger proportion of the Fleet was in reserve and manned with reduced complements. A larger proportion of the Fleet was at home and therefore much smaller drafting margins were required. Then, as has been pointed out, the modern ships require larger complements than the ships of those days. The modern capital ship needs 65 per cent. more men than the old Dreadnought. Then there is also to be considered the greater amount and variety of equipment and the addition of the Fleet Air Arm.
When we come to consider the proportion of officers we find that the reason is,


again, largely the greater complexity of the equipment over which the officers have to exercise supervision. There are many more courses necessary now than used to be the case. Therefore it is necessary to have a higher margin for the pool. The hon. Member spoke of the reduction in the number of stokers. Although there has been a reduction in the number of stokers there has not been anything like an equivalent reduction in the number of engineer officers. The amount of machinery and the number of boilers in oil-burning vessels necessitates very much the same supervising staff as is necessary in coal-burning vessels. If there are any further points of comparison which the hon. Member would like to have, I shall be happy to give them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) raised two very interesting questions. He referred to the desirability of enlisting the active sympathy of those whom we may call the sea-firers of the Empire. I assure him that we pay careful attention to every method of supplementing our reserves and I will look into the two points raised by him. I am afraid that some of the questions put to me in the course of the recent Debate were extremely complicated and I should like a rather longer time in which to deal with them. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), all I would say is that there is no ulterior motive behind the change to which he referred. The only object which was in view when the alteration of status was made was the necessity of decreasing the number of chief petty officers in the Navy. With regard to the other points raised by him, I shall have careful investigation made and he will perhaps allow me to reply to him by letter. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) also asked several questions and was good enough to say that he did not require a detailed answer at once. As to a representative of the engineering branch being included in the Board of Admiralty the Civil Lord of that time went very fully into the question on last year's Estimates. He said that selection to the board was never made on the principle of the representation of individual branches and that it was advisable to select men from among those who

would ultimately have general command of squadrons and fleets at sea. There is nothing to prevent as officer in the engineering branch arriving at the position of Admiral Superintendent of Dockyards.
There is one other point, and that is where the hon. Member talked of observer's mate as a pseudo rank. It is very much the reverse; it is a considerable promotion, and it carries with it added responsibilities and a very considerable advance in pay.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What about the Bennett report?

Lord STANLEY: I am afraid also, in answer to the right hon. Member for the Hillsborough division (Mr. Alexander), that I have not had the opportunity between the main Debate and today of going through the whole of the Bennett report. Many of the main features of that report were, I think, on a closer consideration found to be unacceptable and unworkable, but he will be interested to hear that the figures of the officers coining in by means of special entry in examinations this year have increased very considerably. I hope that, to a certain degree at any rate, that will meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that all the other points are points of detail raised either in the main Debate or to-day, and I shall be glad if hon. Members will be good enough to allow me to answer them individually after fuller consideration.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We do not propose to carry this discussion further, and we are obliged for the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, but I think we had better give him notice, in regard to the last matter, that we should like a. much fuller statement made in the case of this naval year, because we shall have quite a major Vote on a Supplementary Estimate. I hope, therefore, we might get the information then as to what has happened to the discussion by the Admiralty of the Bennett report, which was found to be unsatisfactory. Will the Noble Lord bring to the Board's notice what we are pressing, which is that we should not continue to maintain what is very largely a class distinction in the method of the entry of officers, so as to keep them


within proper conformity with the widespread higher education provision that is now made by ordinary education grants to local authorities, and that there is no reason why Dartmouth should not be reorganised so as to make it possible for the ordinary matriculated boy from the secondary school to go into Dartmouth for a period of training. That is the point to which we want the Noble Lord to give special attention and to reply to on the Supplementary Estimate, and if that is understood, we shall not continue this Debate. One other point is that the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered our case with regard to the very heavy decline in the numbers of promotions to officer ranks from the lower deck. Let him not think that, because time is precious to-day, we shall let that matter slip.

Lord STANLEY: With regard to that last matter, I told the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) that it was much too important a point to be dealt with at very short notice. I said I was disappointed myself at the number of promotions and that I wanted to make a very much closer and fuller investigation of the whole position. I also agree, on the other matter, that instead of dealing with it piecemeal, it would be better to have a broader and more considered statement at some convenient time in the future.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Thank you.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.50 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: There are two or three matters which we desire to raise on this Vote 10, for this Estimate, like all the other Estimates, shows a substantial increase and an increase that is not truly reflected in the Estimates which appear before us. These Estimates show an increase of some £250,000. Against that there is the falling off of the non-payment of £120,000 under the Annuities this year, that is, under the repayment of advances under the Naval Works Acts, 1895 to 1905, so that really the increase in

this Estimate, taking also into consideration the reduction in the amount of money to be spent upon the Singapore Dock, would amount to something like £500,000.
Much could be said concerning the question of expenditure upon buildings. I think the Admiralty, in regard to the provision of new buildings, is exceedingly generous, and again let me say that we who sit on this side of the House do not object in any way to suitable and adequate buildings being provided for the seamen of the Navy, but we find that in this Estimate a sum of £160,000 is set aside for new buildings. I can speak with some little experience, seeing that for a short time I was in charge of this Vote, and what I discovered in the Royal Dockyards was the reluctance of the heads of the Departments to come together to disclose any available accommodation which might be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty if it was required for some other purpose. Incident after incident could be cited to-day, but I do not propose to take up the time of the House, and I would ask the Civil Lord to take note and to inquire very much more closely into the expenditure upon buildings than he appears to have done in presenting this Estimate to-day.
I can say, as far as Vote 10 is con-concerned, that it is very largely a panic Estimate. I would like the Civil Lord to give to the House an indication as to the position concerning the Singapore base. I understand that the main contract has now been completed. That does not mean that the expenditure of money has been completed, but here is an expenditure out of Naval Votes alone of something less than £9,000,000, of which some £4,000,000 went to the contractor for what is regarded as his main work. There is still a sum of £2,500,000 required to complete the work. I think the Civil Lord would be very usefully employed in giving the House an indication as to the position of the Singapore base at the present time.
The main purpose of my rising to deal with this Estimate is with regard to the sum of money amounting to £325,000 which appears on page 215 and which is set aside for oil storage. I would like the Civil Lord to tell the House whether the Board of Admiralty is now going to increase the amount of oil storage. I think we might usefully ask


him whether he could give any indication as to whether this Vote, or a larger sum, will be repeated year after year. We are very concerned about this question of oil storage, and I would like the Civil Lord to give the House an indication as to where this storage is to be provided. Is it to be storage in steel tanks such as we see dotted about the countryside? At almost every place which we visit near the coast are these huge oil tanks, and whenever one goes down to the Thames mouth, one is very alarmed to see the very large number of oil storage tanks which are situated there.
I am not suggesting that the Admiralty is entirely responsible, but I want to bring home to the Board of Admiralty the question of the vulnerability of tanks of this kind. Can any hon. Member visualise what is likely to happen in the event of an aeroplane attack upon these tanks? I dread to think of it. An hon. Friend suggests that they may be put there to encourage one. They would be one of the finest targets, I should think, that an airman could have. Has the House contemplated the damage that could be done if those tanks were set on fire? The whole of the Thames dockside would be destroyed. I would like an indication whether this amount of money is to be spent for the further erection of steel tanks above ground or whether it is intended that it should be spent for the purpose of constructing huge underground reservoirs or oil wells. I think that is very important, and if it is the intention of the Admiralty to construct these huge reservoirs for the storage of oil underground, I should like the Civil Lord to give the House some indication of what the cost is likely to be. As one who has had some little experience in underground work, I know what it does cost to get underground, not only for oil storage, but for cutting coal.
I am not minimising the importance of oil. The Navy could not leave the Royal Dockyards if it was not supplied with the fuel oil which is really necessary. But it is a matter of some concern to us on this side of the House that the Admiralty has not changed its policy in connection with this very important question. Here we are with less than 5 per

cent. of the oil required by the Navy, the Air Force, the mechanised Army, and transport produced in this country or imported from British Dominions. Some 95 per cent. of the oil which is required for all those purposes has to be brought a distance of something like 3,000 miles. I am nut going into the question of convoy and its difficulties. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes) could tell the House very clearly what the difficulties were in the early days of the War, and right throughout the War, in simply convoying food ships into the ports of this country. But if the Navy is to be faced with the convoying of some 400 to 500 tankers to bring the necessary oil into this country, not only for naval purposes, but for all the alter purposes for which oil is now being used, then one can have some concern as to the real situation.
It cannot be said that we cannot produce a suitable oil from coal for naval purposes or for fuelling purposes in this country. That has been tried out. There are four very important elements in oil. The first is calorific value, then there is flash point, then there is sulphur content, and there is one other that I cannot call to mind. But, except with respect to one of those four, oil produced from coal in this country is almost as suitable as oil imported into this country. My point is that, in reply to a question from an hon. Friend on this side a month or six weeks ago, my Noble Friend said that all the oil produced at home and used by the Navy during the course of last year was 7,000 tons, an infinitesimal amount. Why does not the Board of Admiralty settle down to reconsider the whole position? I do not want to go to Germany for any examples, but the reports which have appeared in the Press during tie last six weeks or two months indicate that the German Government are now laying crown plant for the production nearly 1,000,000,000 tons of oil from coal.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) asking the Board of Admiralty not to succumb to the pressure brought to bear on them by oil interests or coal interests in this country. Whilst, at the present time, it may not be possible to produce oil from coal as an economic proposition,


the House should inquire as to what the Board of Admiralty paid for oil during the last years of the War. It was not £2 or £3 per ton, but £14 or £15 a ton. If the emergency arose for which the storage tanks are provided, the Government and the Admiralty and the other fighting Services would put down this plant ad lib, irrespective of cost. Those of us on this side of the House definitely declare that if the Admiralty are now proposing to add to the oil reserves of this country, it would be better, in our opinion, rather than whatever sum should be set aside, be it £1,000,000 or £10,000,000, that even the interest upon that should be used for establishing this plant for the production of oil from coal in this country, thereby making this country, as far as possible, self-supporting.
I would ask the Civil Lord to give us an indication as to where this money is to be spent. Is it to be spent upon these ugly storage tanks on the surface or on underground reservoirs, and can he tell the House whether there are any experiments going on at the present time. Are the Admiralty encouraging these processes? Is the experimental station at Haslar still being set aside for these experiments, and can he tell us whether there are any experiments in dual fuelling by coal and oil? I come from a district in South Wales where we have suffered gravely as a result of this change from coal to oil. Tens of thousands of our miners are displaced and I feel sure the Government could render a great service, not only to the miners of this country, but to all the fighting Services. What is the use of a Navy if fuel is denied to them? I think the Board of Admiralty should take more concern about this matter than they appear to do in providing this amount of money for the storage of oil instead of dealing with what we regard as a matter of imperative importance to the nation as a whole.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I wish to reinforce the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) regarding the importance of storing oil in this country. He referred to the great desirability of developing the production of oil from coal and other sources in these islands. We all recognise that at the present moment we need to import for naval purposes a very large propor-

tion of our requirements. This is a matter of very great importance, affecting the whole of naval defence. I ask the Civil Lord when he replies to say what steps the Government are taking to provide facilities for the storing of oil. Many other hon. Members have been asking that question for some time past, but hitherto we have been unsuccessful in obtaining satisfactory or reassuring information.
We are being asked to decide this afternoon whether the provisions in these Estimates are adequate and suitable to meet our Defence requirements. I submit with all respect that it is not possible for the House of Commons to form that decision unless we know what duties are going to be placed upon our naval vessels. The present small Navy, even with the additions envisaged in the White Paper, can only hope to be adequate provided the Navy reduces to a minimum the convoy duties which will be placed upon it. The more oil we can store in these islands, obviously the less we shall have to import in time of war, and therefore the fewer vessels will be taken up in convoying tankers from overseas, and consequently the more naval vessels will be free to take part in ordinary and regular naval operations and the defence of our coasts.
Only a week ago I asked whether, in order to reduce the magnitude of essential imports in time of war, the Government are taking steps to provide facilities for storing large supplies of grain and oil in this country. The only reply I got was that I might rest assured that questions of this character received due consideration. I do think that this is a matter of such importance that we have a right and duty to ask for more specific information. I naturally pressed for further information and the Minister added that the matter with regard to oil was dealt with fully in an answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) on the 26th February. I imagined that that answer would provide me with the full information I required. I rushed to the Library and turned up the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT and found this:
There is a standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on which all the Services, as well as the Civil Departments concerned, are represented, which is the central co-ordinating authority and keeps regularly under review the


matters referred to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1936; col. 451, Vol. 309.]
I was still as much in the dark as I was before. The Minister added, on the matter of grain that:
With regard to grain the storage facilities are adequate.
Unfortunately I would be out of order if I dealt with the question of the storage of grain, but I think it is most unfortunate that there is no opportunity to discuss, on naval affairs, the question of the storage of grain, because I do think that, reassuring as it may be to know that the storage facilities are adequate in the event of war breaking out to-morrow, it would be very little consolation to know that the storage facilities were adequate if, in point of fact, our granaries were empty. Having obtained no information on the question of storing of oil I felt obliged to raise this question on the Naval Estimates two days ago. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and the hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell) also raised this question, as did other hon. Members, and we expected to get a reply from the Government. When the Civil Lord rose he gave us considerable encouragement that we were going to get the information for which we asked. He said that the question which was referred to by the lion. and gallant Members for Cambridge and South Paddington and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) was that of oil: "I rather prefer," he added, "to take that question in the general argument I want to put before the House."
We all listened intently to the admirable speech of the Civil Lord, but not one word did he say about the question of oil in that general argument. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am sure that the House would expect me to make no apology for once again raising this important question in a final effort to obtain some reassuring information. This is probably the last opportunity we shall get for some little time, and therefore I appeal to the Civil Lord, on my own behalf and on behalf of other hon. Members who have been pressing this question, before he invites us to vote considerable sums of money to his Department to give us some specific information

and assurance on this important and, I think, vital aspect of naval defence.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I do riot wish to follow the last speaker on the point he has raised. It is evident that he has some doubt as to the people who compose the Government he is supporting, otherwise he would not be so disappointed at not getting an answer. The question of Singapore has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and upon this point we are anxiously waiting to be told whether we are to be informed of what is happening there at this time and whether the money spent on it has been spent to advantage. At Rosyth we are spending some £60,000 during this year for storage accommodation. We are expending, I think, £18,000 at Alexandria. May we be told what this represents? I would like to develop that point, but I do not want to take up the time of the House until we hear an explanation. Again, there is expenditure at Hong Kong of some £24,500, upon which I realise that we have some return from the Colonial Government there, but we surely are entitled to know upon what this sum is to be expended and why we are engaged on this considerable expenditure at this time.
I also want to refer to Halton Heath and the cordite factories. Those of us who have to deal with that particular establishment realise the difficulties of those who are employed there, and their constant danger. There is an item dealing with the replacement of certain buildings which have reached the end of their economic life, and I hope that we may be told in what state these buildings are. Has there been a recent examination of conditions at Halton Heath? If there are buildings there which have reached the end of their economic life, they are dangerous to the men employed in them. As to the replacement of bungalows by houses, does it mean that we are to get rid of the whole of the bungalows near the factory and to house the people adequately?

5.16 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Several of our dockyards — Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, Gibraltar, Malta—are particularly susceptible to attack from the air, and we are asked to vote large sums of money for the necessary extension,


repair and upkeep of these yards. It is of the utmost importance that we should be given some assurance that we are justified in spending the money upon these particular yards, and can be certain that there is reasonable security provided for defence against air attack. It is a fairly new form of attack to which the dockyards are liable in time of war, and it is a matter of the greatest importance at the present time. Will the Civil Lord of the Admiralty tell us whether, in these Estimates, any provision whatever is being made for the defence of those dockyards from air attack, and, if not, whether he is satisfied that the existing defences will give that reasonable security upon which we must rely, in order that these bases may continue to be the basis upon which our main Fleet has to rely for upkeep and repairs?

5.18 p.m.

Mr. WATSON: A few nights ago I had an opportunity of putting in a word or two with regard to Rosyth, and as the matter has been raised again this afternoon, I cannot refrain from intervening to draw the attention of the representatives of the Admiralty and of the House to the facilities that Rosyth offers. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) raised certain points this afternoon. He dealt with the reluctance of different departments to lend buildings which are in the possession of Government Departments for other purposes than those for which they were erected. He simply underlined that to which I drew attention the other evening. Buildings which were erected for dockyard purposes at Rosyth are not now being used for that purpose, because Rosyth has been reduced to a care and maintenance basis. These buildings are being used as storehouses, and I suggest to the representatives of the Admiralty that they should be put to a much better use.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of producing oil from coal, and I am in entire agreement with him. As a representative of a coal-producing district, I am very interested in this matter as well, and I should like to see more coal being used for oil production than is the case at present. There is room for a very big development in that direction. When Rosyth was reduced to

a care and maintenance basis in 1925, I suggested that one of the uses to which the dockyard should be put was in connection with the production of oil from coal. We are right in the centre of a coal-producing area, and we have at Rosyth dockyard the finest oil storage accommodation in the world. That may be a big claim to make, but I should like to know whether the representatives of the Admiralty know of better oil storage accommodation anywhere than there is in Rosyth dockyard? It may be true that conditions have changed since that accommodation was provided. The probability of aerial bombs being used in the next war may have changed the position as far as safety is concerned. Is the oil storage accommodation at Rosyth being taken advantage of fully? If we are to he asked to spend more money on new oil storage accommodation, the tanks at Rosyth could be used for the purpose. If not, we shall be wasting the money of the taxpayers of this country. We ought to use the facilities and the accommodation now at the disposal of the Admiralty before we sanction the erection of new buildings or the provision of oil accommodation in any other part of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) referred to the fact that £60,000 was being spent at Rosyth. I wish that were the case, but I think that the Civil Lord will be able to inform my hon. Friend that the money is not to be spent at Rosyth but at Crombie, which is not Rosyth dockyard. It is near to Rosyth, and is being extended, and considerable development is taking place there. While it is under the control of the Admiralty at Rosyth, it is not in Rosyth dockyard. There has been no improvement in the situation as far as the Rosyth dockyard is concerned, and the Admiralty retain the position which they took up in 1925, that the dockyard shall be maintained on a care and maintenance basis.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) referred to the possibility of air attack on the Southern dockyards. The safest dockyard in these islands is at Rosyth, either as regards sea attack or air attack. The hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently agrees with me. Here we have a dockyard which


would be perfectly safe no matter what country was attacking us, unless we in Scotland were to obtain Home Rule and we decided that we were to defend our own country. Then we might make an attack on Rosyth, because it would be very convenient. I hope that the representative of the Admiralty will give to the people of Scotland some encouragement as far as this matter is concerned. The re-opening of Rosyth dockyard would not merely be a local concern. The closing of Rosyth dockyard was looked upon as a national question, and the re-opening of the Rosyth dockyard would be regarded as a national question also. I hope that the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare will be given due consideration by the Admiralty, and that the facilities that Rosyth can offer will be used to the full before money is spent in other parts of the country to provide accommodation similar to that which we have at the present time.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) in his suggestion with regard to Scottish Home Rule, except to say that it appears that his idea of Scottish Home Rule is that Scotland shall have the privilege of taking everything that costs nothing, and that England shall still have the privilege of paying for everything that costs something to keep up.

Mr. WATSON: A statement was made the other day, in reference to the Ministry of Transport and our getting more from the Road Fund than we were paying into that fund. If we are to make further comparisons my hon. Friend will find that Scotland pays more than a fair share of the taxation of this country.

Mr. EDE: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend in this matter because it would be obviously out of order, but he suggests that, in the event of Scottish Home Rule being granted, Rosyth might be rather badly knocked about, for I gather it would be left to the English to maintain. I do not want to go beyond that. There are two issues upon which I want to address a few remarks to the occupants of the Government Front Bench. As the representative of a coal-mining constituency, I wish to press very

strongly upon the Government the question of obtaining oil from British coal. They should make every effort to ensure that there is sufficient storage accommodation in this country to enable the fullest possible use to be made of any oil that can be produced from British coal. I also want to ask some questions with regard to the workmen's cottages to be built at Halton Health. I know the present bungalows very well indeed, and they have long outlived their economic life. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline wants to see an example of the way in which real economy is exercised, far beyond any frugality that would me practised by a Scotsman, he ought to see these bungalows.

Mr. WATSON: In Rosyth we nave the same sort of experience that my hon. Friend is now describing. He need not imagine that all these good things are kept for England. For a considerable number of years the same conditions have existed at Rosyth.

Mr. EDE: I am glad to know that the Admiralty apparently is quite impartial in the way it scatters curses as well as blessings over the countryside. These bungalows at the moment are a good example of the way in which people who have to live in them can make the best of a bad job. Anyone who goes from Poole to Wareham during the summer will find the whole place one mass of glorious rhododendrons. A short distance from Halton Heath there are terraced houses which have been built by a drain pipe manufacturer for his workmen, and they constitute a terrible blot on the countryside. I notice that only £1,000,000 is to be spent on these cottages. I hope the Admiralty in building these cottages will have some regard to the surroundings and will endeavour to set an example to other industrial employers in the neighbourhood in the way of housing workpeople. If these people can be supplied with separate houses in which they can take the same amount of pride as the inhabitants of the present bungalows, then the Admiralty will have done a good thing in this part of the world, which it should be their pride to preserve, in setting an example to other employers and enabling their own work-people to enjoy the delights which should come from such surroundings.

5.33 p.m.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I will deal first of all with some of the smaller points which have been raised during the Debate and then come back to the main points put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and others. I thought that the hon. Member for Aberdare exaggerated a little when referring to the Estimates as a whole. There is a reduction of £120,000 in advances under naval works, but there is also a reduction in receipts of £122,000. The Estimate itself is up about £250,000, arid £120,000 of that is for oil storage. The rest is for more or less normal routine works, but in so far as they are not I will make a reference to them later.
In regard to the point put by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) I have an old interest in Dorset and I can assure the hon. Member that I shall be going there shortly and will take the opportunity of seeing that the new houses which are to be erected do not upset the landscape. The figures given by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) have been completely corrected by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson). The amount does not refer to Rosyth at all. In regard to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline said, the real issue is this: Rosyth is either employed as a full-going dockyard or else as a care and maintenance dockyard; there is no half-way house. I am just as keen as the hon. Member that this particular portion of Scotland should get its share. The district has been badly hit. Rosyth was created partly by the Government, and so far as storage is concerned the magazines and oil tanks are being fully used; in fact, extra tanks have been put there, and it may be that the time will come when Rosyth will get back some of its former glory. I cannot say any more than that at the moment. The expenditure in regard to Hong Kong referred to by the hon. Member for Rochdale is for the transfer of the naval armament depot, for which there is also a Colonial grant. There was one observation of the hon. Member for Aberdare with which I do not agree. It has not been my experience, and these Estimates prove it in two specific cases, that there is any wastage of buildings. The St. Budeaux

barracks are being used for the training of boys and the Sheerness Naval Depot is being used as barracks for direct entrants. I could quote several other examples, and I think it is unfair to say that the greatest amount of care is not taken to utilise as far as possible many of these delightful old buildings, which were erected for an entirely different purpose and in a different era of dockyard development.
The question of Singapore has also been referred to, and let me say in a few words what the position is. As the hon. Member for Aberdare knows, the total Estimate was round about £8,500,000, and Vote 10 is for something like £7,700,000. The provision in these Estimates is for £450,000, and it is simply and solely for a continuation of works under the approved scheme. There are no more contributions coming from outside Governments, the last contribution having been from New Zealand. The Vote includes a provision for the final payment of Messrs. Jackson's contract, and for the payment for steel superstructures, for workshops, the construction of water storage reservoir, magazines and other buildings, all ancillary to the main scheme. A very large proportion of this expenditure will be made in this country, and, as I have said, the base will be completed for general use in 1939. Messrs. Jackson's contract is finished now and the graving dock will be ready to function before the end of 1937.
The main question that has been raised is that of oil. I thought I should have had an opportunity on Monday of going rather more into detail on this matter, but actually I spent most of my time in dealing with a matter which is of vital importance to the Navy. I tried to prove that if oil does not reach these shores nothing else will. I was trying to make a case for the Navy being the predominant factor in our scheme of defence. It is not always realised that in view of the disposition of the Fleet and the fact that oil resources are world-wide, we are not necessarily in the position to which some hon. Members have referred, provided there is adequate storage accommodation available and that we have command of the sea routes. If we lose that command, oil, along with other equally vital commodities, also goes. As far as the Navy is concerned, I would remind hon. Members


that oil requirements and reserves have been closely examined.

Mr. SANDYS: The point which we tried to make is that we are more likely to be able to retain command of the seas by liberating as many ships as possible from convoy duty to take part in the operations.

Mr. LINDSAY: I realise that, and it is part of my argument. There are a number of processes, with which the hon. Member for Aberdare is probably more familiar than I, for producing oil from coal; the processes of low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation. One or two hon. Members have implied that because certain experiments are going on in Germany and France, which seem to suggest that they are making themselves completely independent of outside oil supplies, it therefore should be the policy of Great Britain also. That does not necessarily follow. We are an Imperial country, and the policy of oil from coal and its storage has to be thought out in terms of Imperial defence. It is not quite fair, therefore, to compare our position with some Continental countries. I think also it is easy to overdo and exaggerate the claims for these experiments and researches in certain foreign countries. I ask hon. Members to believe that we are very much aware of these experiments and researches; and that they are taking place in this country as well. What we have to make up our minds about is at what point, on grounds of national defence and finance, is it worth our while to conduct great experiments at very large cost in preference to bringing oil from various parts of the world. I come to this problem as to some others with quite a. new mind and I can assure hon. Members that when the phrase is used by any Minister that this matter is being considered, it is an understatement of the case. I will leave it at that.
With regard to low temperature carbonisation, it must be remembered that nil fuel is a by-product. The low temperature carbonisation process and hydrogenation are not competitive; indeed they are complementary. There have been experiments from which a small amount of oil fuel has been obtained under the low temperature carbonisation process. Other experiments are going on. I would like to say, also as a general prin-

ciple, that we must not imagine that this is going to make as enormous a difference to the coal mines of this country as some hon. Members indicate. If we produced on a very large scale with a great many by-products, some of which would no doubt be useful, at very great expense and if we produced all the oil fuel by one or other of these processes, in the one case I doubt whether the increase in the use of coal would be very appreciable, and in the other case, as far as we know at present and as far as I am advised by experts, it would be rather Durham and Yorkshire than South Wales that would benefit at first. It is, however, quite impossible to say, because all these matters are at the moment in the experimental stage. As soon as they pass out of that stage into the commercial stage, the effects on the coal mines, whether in South Wales or in the North, will immediately be taken into consideration, and the whole matter will be put on a different footing.

Mr. HALL: May I point out that some 35 to 40 per cent. of the coal in South Wales is quite suitable either for hydrogenation or low temperature carbonisation—more of it for hydrogenation than for low temperature carbonisation—and that if, under the system of hydrogenation, which uses up all the coal, all the petrol required in this country were converted from coal it would put into employment between 50,000 and 60,000 miners.

Mr. LINDSAY: I think the last figures of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) are an estimate, and that he would be the first to admit. I am content to leave the matter in this way: The Government are pursuing the research stage of oil from coal as assiduously as possible. It is their declared policy, as has already been shown by preferences and duties, to give every possible encouragement. They have already given concrete evidence that they are prepared to grant such a preference. When the matter comes out of the experimental stage and into the commercial stage, we shall have to balance the rival claims of heavy capital expenditure and vital national defence. To that extent I have a little sympathy with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), although I think he put for ward his argument rather on theoretical principles of Free Trade versus Protec-


tion, or the pressure of vested interests. I do not think those are things that matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond what can be discussed on this question. He must restrict his remarks to the vote for oil storage and not go at length into the question of oil from coal.

Mr. LINDSAY: I apologise, but the right hon. Baronet raised the question of storage, and I wanted to refer to his remarks in the main Debate on the whole question of oil from coal.

Mr. EDE: In view of the comparative way in which the hon. Member introduced his remarks, I take it that if the production of oil from English coal would help Durham, that would be no reason in itself for not doing it?

Mr. LINDSAY: The hon. Member has almost answered the question he has put. I think I cannot say any more than that to hon. Members. The whole question of storage in this country, underground and above-ground, is not the sort of problem that can be very easily debated in this House. The hon. Member for Aberdare knows perfectly well—I consider I am very happy in my predecessors on both sides of the House—from past experience that it is not public policy to state in this House either what are the intentions with regard to future oil storage or the locations of that storage. Therefore, I cannot give him specific answers to those two questions. The whole question of oil from coal is being energetically pursued, and if at any moment it seems favourable to the Admiralty to use larger stores that will be done, bearing in mind my original point that strategically storage in different parts of the world and oil coming from different parts of the world are not so simple a matter as some hon. Members have inferred. In fact, there are some positive strategic advantages in not having all the oil produced in this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) raised a question concerning the defence of the dockyards. All I can say is that measures are being prepared and that they include the training of the personnel in the use of gas masks, taking shelter and so on, and

that in some of the overseas dockyards far more concrete steps have been taken. This is not a matter which could be debated in this House or on which I could say to what extent complete preparation is to be made against air attacks on the main dockyards in the South of England.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It is, of course, very important that the men in the dockyards should have gas masks, but it is much more important that the dockyards themselves should be defended efficiently against air attack. That is my real point.

Mr. LINDSAY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that co-operation between the military Air Force and the civil authorities is the right method of dealing with that particular question, and it is one that could hardly be brought up on an Estimate such as this. There is one thing I would like to say in conclusion. A certain amount of publicity has recently been given to small acts of sabotage. I would like to say that the spirit in the dockyards of the country at the present time, and the relations between the Admiralty and the various unions on the council, are just as happy as when the hon. Member was in my position, and I hope that may long be the case.

Orders of the Day — REPORT [17TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported:

AIR ESTIMATES, 1936.

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 50,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,518,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,491,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £760,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.52 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The House discussed fairly thoroughly on Tuesday most of the important questions involved in the Votes that are coming up to-day on the Report stage. It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House or to raise any issues that will cause a long Debate, but on Vote A I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question in reference to statements that he made on Tuesday, and to compare them with the figures given in the Vote which we are at present discussing. In the course of his speech he said:
Of the 2,500 pilots we require, we have taken 500 from airmen already serving. This gives our ground personnel increased opportunities to fly, which have been much appreciated. Of the balance of 2,000 pilots to be obtained from civil life, we have already secured nearly 1,200. Of ground personnel, we have to date obtained 14,500. Of these 1,100 are re-enlisted airmen and 13,400 are new recruits. We have thus got to date 15,700 of the 25,000 personnel we require over the two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1936; cols. 264–5, Vol. 310.]
I would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the point that was raised concerning the number of fighting and bombing aeroplanes that will be in commission when the proposals in these Estimates are carried out. He said that the number given in the Estimates themselves did not represent the Air Force by any means. He admitted that, because it is well known. In fact, he said that the reserves and training units represent even more than the first-line defence. I gave the figure, as an estimate, of between 4,000 and 5,000 as representing the total Air Force. If one looks into the question thoroughly, I think 5,000 aeroplanes will represent not only the first-line defence, but also the

reserves, training units, experimental machines, and so forth. The only point I intend to raise is that I cannot altogether square the number of personnel which is stated in thee Estimates as being required and as being obtained with the number that must constitute the total of the Royal Air Force in all its aspects.
I would like also to ask the Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied with the rate of enlistment that is represented. Over two years the proportion seems to be all right, but I would imagine that during the first year in the new expansion there would be a larger proportion of people desiring to enter the Royal Air Force, and that there might be some difficulty in obtaining the remainder of the personnel as represented by these figures.
I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in connection with personnel in general, the Air Force has found any of the type of difficulties with which the other Services have been faced? There is a problem with regard to recruiting in the Army and the Navy and a great deal of it is represented by the bad physical condition of large numbers of people. To what extent does that apply to the Royal Air Force May I ask, finally, what is the result of the new experiment, about which so much was said a little while ago in respect of airmen pilots? We on this side with our democratic ideas are, of course, very favourable to the principle of people going up from the ranks to the higher branches of the Service, and we should be interested to know how this experiment is succeeding.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: My excuse for intervening at this stab e is that I think I may possibly be able to reassure some hon. Members who hive been a little nervous about details of the personnel of the Air Force. I refer particularly to the short-service-commission men whom we have been taking in during the last few months. By the courtesy of the Minister and the Adjutant-General of the Air Force, I was able to visit practically all the short-service training schools a week ago. Many Members who have an interest in these things will agree that we were beginning to feel a little disquiet as to whether the quality of new entrants for the short-service


commissions was such as to enable us to feel confidence. From what I could see up and down the country the quality up to the present is very high, and the percentage of rejections which will have to be made is likely to be very small. Members will remember that under this system the entrants, who are taken at various ages up to about 25, may come from any walk of life. They may come direct from a public school or any other school or from any occupation. They are given a course of flying training by civil instructors in civil schools, then given a short course of organisation and discipline, and then transferred to the Royal Air Force regular flying schools where they spend six months.
There are certain difficulties in this system, and I propose to put them before the right hon. Gentleman with a view to seeing whether means can be devised for removing them. I found a remarkable thing about the origin of these young men who take short service commissions: the great public schools supply a very small proportion of them. The grammar schools supply a goodly number, and those schools are in many instances of an extremely high standard of education. Some of the regular commanding officers who have to deal with these short service commission officers tell me that some of their "star turns" are boys who have been brought up for the mercantile marine in the "Conway" or "Worcester," who have done some service at sea to qualify for their certificates, but have found, as is too often the case, that appointments in the mercantile marine are very few. They have then transferred at a comparatively early age to the short service commission schools. These, I was informed, might probably be the best pilots and might ultimately make the best officers.
It is, however, a pity that a greater effort is not made to draw upon the very best material that we have in the country, which is found in the public schools. Nearly every public school has its Army class, but how many have an Air Force class? After all, the Air Force is a much more important thing than the Army so far as the defence of the country is concerned. If the Ministry would encourage the idea of some of our great public schools having an Air Force class, it would enable candidates to be prepared

for the entrance examinations, just as they are now prepared for Woolwich and Sandhurst. I understand that a large number of boys from the great public schools fail to pass their entrance examination and are rejected, and there is every reason to suppose that in many cases they would have made excellent flying officers if they had only had the preparation which would enable them to pass the entrance examination.
But the main difficulty, as far as I can ascertain, is with regard to parents. I got that confirmed at one of the aerodromes at which I landed where there happened to be a party of boys of the Officers Training Corps from a neighbouring public school taking some sort of course. I managed to get the youngsters to talk to me openly. I found them very keen about the air, but they agreed ultimately after consultation with one another that parents were the real trouble. I made further investigations into the parents' point of view. As a bachelor of 57 years standing I can of course appreciate the feelings of parents. I found that the objections to a boy going into the Air Force are three in the case of the short service commissions. The first—and it is as well to be open about these things—is the reputation of the Air Force. That seems a bold and unpleasant thing to say in public, but everybody knows that there was a time when the Air Force was a pretty rough crowd. But if we consider what was the condition of the great universities in the same period, I venture to say that the parent who thought that if he sent his son into the Air Force he was endangering his immortal soul, would, if he only considered the matter, have felt he would have endangered it equally if he sent his son to Oxford or Cambridge. Therefore, that objection falls to the ground. Just as the great universities have reformed themselves since the immediate post-war period and are on at least as high a standing as they used to be before the War, so also, notwithstanding that terrible period in question, the Air Force has found its feet, has reformed itself, and is in every respect as fit a place for any young man as Oxford or Cambridge.
The next objection is that a parent has a sort of feeling that if his son goes into the Air Force and flies in an aeroplane, he will break his neck. I can only


say that I myself am a living proof of the fallacy of that idea. I have crashed my way through some 300 or 400 hours of cross-country flying, and although I started at the age of 54 summers, having two war disablements, the first being in the Boer War, I have found it possible to preserve my neck in spite of the so-called dangers of flying and—touching wood—I hope to preserve it still. So the second objection falls to the ground.
The third objection is this. The public school boy goes in at the age of 17¾ or 18, which is the lowest age for a short service course. That means that if he only takes a short service commission and does not get a full-time commission subsequently, he comes out at the age of 23, and the parent thinks he is spoiled for any job in the professions, in industry, or in commerce. Speaking as an industrialist and after real consideration of all the factors, I definitely state that a boy from a good public school, particularly if he has been brought up on the classics and not on science—that is to say, if he has been properly educated—who goes in for a short service commission at the age of 17¾ will be far more useful in industry when he comes out than if he had been at Oxford or Cambridge. When he goes into industry direct from Oxford or Cambridge, it is some time before he is any real use, whereas a man who has been in command of men and in charge of high-powered machines can be made use of in industry almost immediately, and, in due course, he can be promoted, if not to the top positions in industry, at any rate to positions which will be satisfactory to his doubting parents who have allowed him to go in for a short service commission. What I am saying is propaganda, and I hope that the Press will report it, because the first thing to do is to remove the parents' objections to short service commissions. If only parents would ascertain the facts they would find that their fears were not justified.
There are one or two points of detail which I think may be of use to the Minister. It is difficult to know what percentage of these short service commissions are prolonged into full service commissions. For I do not suppose that anybody knows how far the expansion

of the Air Force will go, and how permanent it will be. Therefore, it is admittedly extremely difficult to be able to say that we can guarantee a higher percentage of permanent commissions for the best of our short service commission officers. Would it, however, not be possible to give the commanding officers of the Royal Air Force training schools for the short service commissions the power practically to guarantee a small percentage of permanent commissions to the best of each of the classes which they have? Would it not be possible further to give commanding officers a little more discretion as to turning down those young men who they feel convinced will not be successful as officers. It is easy enough to turn boy down because he cannot fly, but there are many reasons which may make a boy, in no way through his own fault, unsuitable to go forward to a commission. Commanding officers who have been appointed to this work are of such quality that they may very well be allowed rather more discretion to deal with these men than they are allowed now. After talking with commanding officers in every part of the country, I was immensely impressed with the care of selection of the officers dealing with short service commissions. There was every type of man represented and everyone was first rate for the particular job.
There is one further point concerning the commandants of these schools which I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Ministry will admit that where you have an organisation of that sort in detached units up and down the country there is always a danger that the form of instruction may tend to vary from unit to unit as time goes on unless there are means by which the commandants can have regular consultations with one another. I venture to suggest that the official summoning of these officers to meet under the auspices of the Ministry or the Air Force heads would not effect the object nearly so well as arranging for them to meet more or less unofficially. In the Midlands of this country there are a number of great houses still in existence, and the owners of some of them might find that they were doing good work for the country if they could arrange week-end gatherings to which a number of these commandants could be invited and at


which they could talk things over among themselves to see that they were not varying their courses too greatly.
On this question of schools, I would say that the civilian schools vary a good deal. Some of them have excellent accommodation for short-service commission purposes and others not so good, but taking them all together, and as far as my observations go, I think these civilian schools are first-rate, and the Royal Air Force officers seem to be of the same opinion—that they give extremely good instruction and that the boys from them who subsequently join the Royal Air Force are found to have been thoroughly well grounded.
A wider aspect of the problem is that, until we know what form of tactical scheme is being worked out for the Air Force, we really cannot know what kind of personnel we require. The general public is of the opinion that the only form of defence against air attack on the civilian population is by means of reprisals. If that is to be the case it is obvious that we want a particular type of personnel to undertake it. It is not every English boy who will drop bombs on a civilian population with any enthusiasm. If, on the contrary, the tactical schemes of the Air Force are based on the principle on which we were brought up in the Army, and on which the boys of the Navy are brought up too, which is that the side which will win in war is the side which neglects everything in order to attack the armed forces of the enemy, and that the side which allows itself to be distracted by any side issue, such as killing women and children by means of bombs, is the side which will ultimately fail in war, we ought to be informed of the fact.
I am not fishing round for confidential information, but I do impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and upon the House that we do not know what type of personnel we want until we know definitely what is to be the basis of the Air Force tactics in the matter of defence. If we contemplate the other form of defence, that means attacks upon bombing squadrons. So far as we know any effective attack upon massed squadrons bombing open cities in this country will involve forms of fighting in which it is going to be a 20 to 1 chance against our pilots getting clear in their

parachutes or not. If that is going to be the basis of our tactics we need for the purpose absolutely the cream of our young manhood, or we shall never be able to carry it out.
Finally, let me make another appeal to parents. Let them consider what the next war is going to mean for us in its early stages. There is not the least doubt that we arc going to see attempts by enemy Powers to cow civilian populations by intensive bombing of open towns, and I advise any parent who has a son who wants to join the Air Force arid who is doubtful about allowing him to do so, to go and have a look at a modern night-bomber standing on the ground and see that quintescence of wickedness, that work of art which embodies, in a form more effective than any which has been achieved by the genius of any poetic, plastic, or pictorial artist of the past, the whole spirit of evil. Then let him understand that his boy may have the duty and the honour of destroying at any rate one of those hideous embodiments of all that is foul and wicked in the world.

6.22 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I am sure all hon. Members will congratulate the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) not only on first learning to fly after he had seen, as he said, 54 summers, but in getting through an air crash as he did a short time ago. I hope he will not risk himself too much, because we greatly value his contributions to these Debates. What he has said in his speech to-day about parents will, I hope, be published in all papers throughout the country, because I am certain it will do a tremendous amount of good. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air a single question. What determines the number of pilots for the Royal Air Force? The White Paper and other documents say that we are to have 1,750 machines. If we look at the number of machines that Germany will have by March, 1937, she must be training pilots for 4,360 machines. I have tried to get the most accurate figures possible on this subject and I have taken some from the foreign Press. Russia must be training pilots for 4,000 machines, Italy for 2,750, France for 2,700 and Great Britain 1,750. The Prime Minister promised us parity with the nations


within striking distance of this country, but I submit that if we are training pilots for only 1,750 machines we are falling very much short of what other nations are doing, and I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us on what basis his estimate of pilots is founded.
The hon. Member for Mossley raised the question of getting more pilots, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he has considered going to the Dominions for more. I know that he invites men from the Dominions to come to this country to be trained as pilots, but I should like to know whether anything has been done to create an Empire Air Force. This question was raised in another place by Lord Elibank some time ago, but I do not think he received a very satisfactory answer from the Air Minister. When we were short of pilots in the War we appealed to the Dominions, and they sent over some of the best pilots we had in the Royal Flying Corps and in the Royal Naval Air Service, many of them proving to be distinguished "aces." Could not an Empire air force be created in the Dominions, with small units to start with? They could use the pilots to pilot the civil air line machines carrying air mails. In that way we could build up gradually a splendid force of airmen, who might come to the help of the Empire when it is in danger. Could not the Under-Secretary consult the new co-ordination Minister about taking up the question of creating an Empire Air Force.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. WELLS: I should like to refer to one point, concerning the public schools and the Royal Air Force. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that parents are afraid of accidents befalling their sons. I think the difficulty lies in short service commissions. If the Minister could arrange for longer commissions he would get any number of entrants from the schools, and, also, they might set up air classes. A boy leaving school at 18 is generally occupied up to the age of 25 in learning his job before he can earn his living, and if he goes into the Air Force on a short-term commission at a time when, otherwise he would be learning to earn his living, when he comes out of the

Force he has to start afresh to learn a job. There is the great difficulty, and if the Minister could get over it I believe he would find no trouble in securing all the pilots he requires.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I think we are all encouraged by these Estimates, which certainly represent a great advance on anything we have had before, and I do not wish that anything I say on this Vote should be interpreted as a criticism of them. I rise merely ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for definite information on one specific point. Will he throw some light upon the Government's intentions regarding the Prime Minister's famous pledge, made in March, 1934, that he would make the Air Force of this country equal in strength to that of any other country within striking distance of our shores I asked my right hon. Friend a question on parity and numbers on Monday, and his reply was that he hoped I would await his statement when he introduced the Estimates on Tuesday. I listened very intently to all that he then said, hut, so far as I could detect, there was no reference to this subject. Therefore, I make no apology for raising the point on this Vote. The Prime Minister's reassuring declaration was made at a time when the whole country had been showing signs of considerable anxiety at our unpreparedness in the air. The Prime Minister's words were hardly off his tongue before they were flashed to the four corners of the earth, bringing with them a deep sense of relief not only to the people of these islands but to all peace-loving and freedom-loving nations throughout the world.
Last year I fought two elections, and gave very great prominence to the Prime Minister's pledge about parity, and whenever I quoted his words they were received with signs of enthusiasm and of confidence. That is why I should like my right hon. Friend to answer four specific questions on this master. First, can he tell us whether the Prime Minister's pledge still holds good to-day and assure us that it is the corner stone of the Government's air policy? Secondly, in fulfilling this undertaking, what is the basis upon which air parity is being reckoned. Is it being measured by first line air


strength, by reserves, by trained personnel or by the capacity of industry to expand rapidly in times of emergency? I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the Government have a definite standard by which to compare the air strength of Great Britain with that of other countries, and their method of reckoning includes a combination of these factors. Thirdly, which countries, for the purpose of the fulfilment of this pledge, are deemed to be within striking distance of our shores?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going far beyond the scope of the Amendment. He can only discuss the number of men.

Mr. SANDYS: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question in regard to parity of personnel between this country and other countries. Would I be in order in raising it on this Vote?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be a matter of policy.

Mr. SANDYS: Unless we can have information of this kind, it is difficult for the House to form an estimate of the effort which the Government are making in fulfilment of that pledge.
Lastly, can the Under-Secretary tell us what is the maximum time within which the Government have set themselves the task of achieving parity in numbers? A construction programme, or a programme to increase personnel, is of little value without a time-table. Whether or not my right hon. Friend can give us the exact date, I hope that he will be able to assure us that a time limit exists for the fulfilment of this pledge. In short, does the promise mean something definite? I am sure that it was not merely a happy phrase thrown out in the course of the Debate. I believe we are right, and that the British people are right, in regarding the Prime Minister's promise as a very charter of our security against air attacks. That promise was made two years ago. The Government admit that they are still very far from having fulfilled it. I do not criticise them for that. I recognise the difficulties and the obstacles with which they are faced. Nevertheless I think the time has come when we have a duty to ourselves and to our constituents to ask for some clarifica-

tion of the Government's intentions and of their interpretation of the Prime Minister's momentous pledge, upon which so much hope and confidence were founded.

6.34 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for Al R (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) asked me for our views about airman pilots. He will remember that in my speech the day before yesterday I announced that we had already taken 500 airman pilots, who are already serving, to help us to make up the total of pilots that we require. In addition to that, we are also going to take direct-entry pilots, people who come directly into the Air Force and are trained as pilots in the same way as our serving personnel are trained. The system of using airman pilots in the Air Force has been of immense value and has been very successful. As to the difficulty that the hon. Member envisages, about our being able to secure personnel in completing this programme, we can only wait and see, but the results that we have had so far have been so encouraging, and been so considerably greater than our expectations, that we may have good hope and confidence that our necessity will be amply supplied. With regard to the standard of new pilots that are coming in, I think that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) who spoke just now gave a very full reply. He was in a very good position to do so, because, as he told us, he had just completed a flight round the country, visiting some of those civil flying schools—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1936.
2. Milk (Extension of Temporary Provions) Act, 1936.
3. Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1936.
4. Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1936.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bedford Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.


6. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bury and District Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chester and Derby) Act, 1936.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mid-Sussex Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (North East Lindsey Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (St. Albans Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Act, 1936.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [17TH MARCH].

AIR ESTIMATES, 1936.

Question again proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

6.50 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I was describing the value of the report which my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley furnished on his flying trip. He has given us this afternoon a very interesting speech, containing a great many valuable suggestions based on the observations he made during the course of his flight. We at the Air Ministry are very glad to have his report, and look upon it as a valuable contribution. I was particularly glad to hear his remarks about the situation in our great public schools so far as the Air Force is concerned. I myself have been round to a great many schools, bent on propaganda work with the object of trying to convey to those schools a greater knowledge of what the Air Force means as a career for their boys. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one of the great difficulties so far has been the attitude of the parents, who on the whole do not seem to give any encouragement to their boys to join the Air Force. Another difficulty lies in the masters, who, at most of these public schools, know very little about the Air Force. They are in a very important position, because they

meet the parents and discuss with them the careers of the boys, and, if they had a greater knowledge of what the Air Force would mean as a career, I think they could be of considerable help. The Air Ministry stress very much the system of liaison with these schools, and we hope that in the coming months the great schools throughout the Kingdom will realise their responsibility and do what they can to send a bigger and better contribution to the third aid newest of the Services. My hon. Friend described how a short time ago the Air Force was a rather rough place, but now, he said, it is a fit place for anyone. It is not only a. fit place for any boy, but, it provides him with a most interesting eareer. If a boy goes into the Air Force, the moment he gets his commission his personal responsibility begins, and his life from then onwards is one of great movement and interest; and as far as the short-service officer is concerned, when the time comes for him to leave the Service he can at least feel that he is very efficient and skilled in a trade which must be of great use to him in after life.
The two hon. Members who spoke last dealt with the question of parity and the Prime Minister's pledge. The Prime Minister announced last year our determination not to accept a position of inferiority, and that policy of course stands. But the difficulty, as my hon. Friends know, is to find a reliable basis of comparison. It is not enough to say that we must have the same number of machines as some other Power. Numerical parity is not necessarily real parity. Any comparison that is to be of practical use must be a comparison of like with like; otherwise it is only misleading. We have to consider many other factors besides the actual numbers of machines immediately available to take the air. There are questions of training facilities, reserves, performance of machines, proficiency of pilots and formations, and many others. And the platter does not even end there, because, as I said in my speech on the Estimates, behind all that you require on the part of the industry the capacity to turn to war production—what I described as the war potential. All these factors have to be taken into consideration, and we have done so. We believe that the programme we have set before the Douse will give


us real parity. Perhaps I might put it in this way. In the first place, we are creating a force which, judged by character and quality both of men and machines, we believe to be a most effective offensive and defensive instrument; and, secondly, according to all the information that we have been able to receive and obtain from many different sources, we believe it to be adequate in numbers at the present time. But, of course, the situation must be watched continually. Situations are continually changing, both here and abroad, and, as I say, it will be watched constantly.

Sir M. SUETER: If the Germans are training pilots for some 4,000 machines, as we pretty well know they will be by 1937, does my right hon. Friend think it right that we should only have 1,750, because they have their reserves and their factories organised behind them exactly as we have? That is a point which I do not quite understand.

Mr. SANDYS: Would my right hon. Friend also say whether there is a. time limit within which this parity will be achieved?

Sir P. SASSOON: As my hon. Friend knows, we are working to a programme which is to be concluded in 1039. As I have said, the situation may change, but we are going to be elastic, and if we find it necessary to increase we shall have to do so. At present we are building up an adequate and efficient Air Force with what we consider at present to be adequate reserves; and, what is more important, we are building up this great war potential which is to put the industry on a basis which will not only enable it to increase and give us our requirements in time of war, but from now onwards will enable it to produce the numbers of aircraft and engines that we require.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

6.58 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: We can allow this Vote to pass so far as criticism from this bench is concerned except for just

one point, on which I would like an answer from the right hon. Baronet. It is in connection with the remuneration paid to people under the control of the Royal Air Force in the lower ranks of civilian service. I do not know what the principle is, if there be one at all, on which the Royal Air Force operates so far as ordinary industrial employment is concerned. The Fair Wages Clause is in operation, I understand, the principle being that the general level of the highest standard of any particular district, whether it be a trade union standard or not, shall be that adopted by the Service. But there are numbers of other people who seem to me to be treated in a very gingerly fashion by the Service so far as remuneration is concerned. There may be an explanation, and the one or two instances to which I want to refer may be instances of people of comparatively youthful years. In any case, when you are paying male clerks, under Grade III, for a 42-hour week, 55s. 2d.—rising, of course, to higher salaries as the years go by—and for a 44-hour week, in some cases, 51s. 3d.; when temporary clerks are paid 55s. 2d., and in the Provinces, 51s. 3d., and women clerks 32s. and 27s., it seems to me that that is a very mean type of remuneration. And I would like to point out in that connection that, although it may be true that there is no organised trade union applicable, in the sense that they have quite the status of the bigger trade unions there are several trade unions which deal with quite a large number of these people. Cleaners, for instance, get £1 5s. a week. Whatever they may be cleaning, and it may be a very small kind of occupation, it is plainly impossible, for anyone to live on £1 5s. a week and it seems to me quite disgraceful that an important service like the Air Ministry should be paying salaries of that kind. But I wanted to refer to the amounts which are paid to typists. We have typists here whose rate is £107 a year. Surely this House must recognise that a salary of £107 a year, roughly £2 a week, is not an adequate remuneration for a typist, whatever the grade, if the typist is efficient. That is all I want to raise on this particular Vote. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can deal with the points off-hand,


but, if not, perhaps, he will look into the question and communicate with me afterwards.

Sir P. SASSOON: I certainly will do that if I may. All I will say is that these rates of pay are common to all Government Departments. They are not only applicable to the Air Ministry, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I will look into the points.

7.3 p.m.

Sir M. SUETER: I should like to raise a question about the scientific staff at Farnborough and their emoluments. I think that we pay these scientists far too little. Their emoluments are very small indeed for the work they do. I would like to see them raised because the private firms give greater emoluments and the hest men go into private firms. We want to see some of the best men at Farnborough and I ask the Under-Secretary if he will take the matter up with the Minister to see if we cannot get some of the higher positions paid better, because we want to attract the best brains that we can from the universities and public schools. This is an important matter and it may mean everything to the Air Service.

Sir P. SASSO ON: I will certainly look into that question. It gives me great pleasure to hear my hon. and gallant Friend holding what is, obviously, a brief for Farnborough. He has on past occasions not used such friendly language, and I see that now he has become. converted to the uses and advantages of Farnborough and wants to make it as efficient as possible.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.5 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: There are two points which I want to raise. First, I would like to draw the attention of the House and the Under-Secretary to the fact that a very important consideration has not been touched upon in the course of the Debates on these Estimates. I am surprised that the subject of Singapore has not been referred to. It seems to

me that the question what is happening to the aeroplane base at Singapore is one about which we should have very full information. I suppose that I would be quite out of order—and I do not wish to be—if I ventured into the realms of high policy, but we all recognise that the base at Singapore is regarded as of very great importance strategically. I think that a great deal could be discussed on that matter. But the Base is there; it is regarded as extremely important. It certainly was when I had anything to do with the Air Ministry, and we find in the Estimates, on page 74, provisions for an extension, of the Base to accommodate further units, quarters for officers, two additional landing grounds, and for the accommodation of a volunteer air force unit. I think that we might be told a little more in detail about this expansion, the reasons for it, and also something that we ought to know, and that is the relations from the standpoint of co-ordination between the Naval arid Air Force elements at Singapore. Suppose something happened in the Pacific, and military action had to be taken, I do not know whether the co-ordinating general would have something to do with the co-ordination of the Forces there. But exactly what relations exist between the Navy and Air Force at Singapore is a matter of great interest from the standpoint of organisation.
There is one other point I should like to raise. What is the position to-day about that matter which was a source of a great amount of trouble some years ago—the question of the rights of representatives of trade unions to meet their men engaged in constructional work on aerodromes? There are certain rights, but it seems that the last word rests with the commanding officer, and I suppose that that is necessary in the circumstances. A great deal is talked about the secret units of aircraft and the need of keeping close control over aerodromes to avoid espionage. At the same time, there is the usual right that is given in constructional work for trade union representatives to be able to meet, the men on the work in order to discuss with them questions of trade in union organisation, and so on. I gathered some time ago that there was doubt as to what was organisation and what was propaganda. I would like the Under-Secretary to say what the rights are in this matter.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: There is a small matter which affects my constituency on which I would like some information. I see on page 61 that the Ministry propose to build two new aerodromes in Gloucestershire. As the House will readily admit, there is no more beautiful county than Gloucestershire, and when we find ourselves faced with two new aerodromes we are a little nervous. For what purpose are these aerodromes to be built, and where and when does the Minister propose to build them I would like to make two suggestions. There are near my constituency four or five disused Wartime aerodromes. Would it not be better, instead of building these two new aerodromes, to rebuild two of those old Wartime aerodromes? Gloucester and Cheltenham have recently joined up and gone in for a municipal aerodrome. Many of us feel that that may shortly become a white elephant, and it seems to me that as the Ministry have encouraged them to go in for that aerodrome, the least we can ask for is a reserve training school on that aerodrome. If that could be provided, the ratepayers of Gloucester and Cheltenham would be only too delighted.

Mr. MANDER: I would like to ask a question with regard to certain expenditure which is to take place on aerodromes in Egypt. I am wondering whether the Air Ministry have in mind the possibilities of the negotiations with the Egyptian Government which may result in considerable changes regarding where the Royal Air Force is 'stationed in Egypt. I should like to be assured that the Ministry are not going to spend money where there is any chance of it being wasted expenditure.

7.12 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I can give a full assurance that no expenditure will be undertaken or contemplated without it being assured that it will not be wasted. With regard to the two aerodromes in Gloucestershire, I am afraid that I cannot give any information to my hon. Friend. We have not decided yet where they will be or which will be the sites selected, and if beforehand we were to announce that, in a certain area of that beautiful county an aerodrome was to be put up, I am afraid that the result would be that the taxpayer would have to pay a good deal

more for the site. But as soon as I can give my hon. Friend information on the subject, I certainly will.

Mr. PERKINS: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the possibility of the Ministry using the municipal aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: They can put in for a contract, of course, just like anybody else, and I will see that it will receive very sympathetic consideration.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.14 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the course of the Debate on Tuesday I referred to the question of the speed factor and the time factor with regard to aeroplanes and national defence. He spoke of fighting planes of a speed of over 300 miles an hour, and I said that bombing planes were probably not very far behind that speed. I drew from that the conclusion that from certain considerations with regard to time and distance, unless there were other methods of defending London, we should have a great difficulty in using aircraft for the purpose of defence. But I see that there is a complete justification of what I said with regard to that margin in the difference between the two types of aircraft in what has been stated in the Press about a new bomber, a Fairey Battle, which was in the air yesterday, and about which there is a good deal of technical information in the newspapers. We are told that the speed of the bomber is considerably over 300 miles an hour and it is a bomber which no fighting plane can catch. If we are building bombers which no fighting plane can catch, is it to be imagined that other nations are not doing or will not do the same thing?
This idea of a race in armaments—because that is what it amounts to—is not a question of this peace-loving country arming against some other country, but of a see-saw between countries with regard not merely to the quantity but also the quality of aircraft and, following that, we must increase our efficiency in one way or another. The same kind of thing is


shown in what has happened in the last year or so in reference to the arming of fighting aircraft. We began by increase-the machine gun power of our small fighters by 100 per cent. What was the answer to that from one country alone—France? At the Aero Exhibition in Paris last year there were similar machines armed not with machine guns but with small bore cannon. Our answer has been to put cannon in ours, improving the efficiency of the cannon. That is a very fine game played slowly but one that will lead to bankruptcy and war. What appears in the newspaper even this morning about our bombing strength fully justifies the attitude of the Labour party in regard to the general question of arms and the race in armaments.

7.19 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: We are saying goodbye to-night to some £40,000,000 on the Air Force Estimates, and on this Vote we. are saying goodbye to the expenditure on our aircraft and equipment, therefore, I do not think the House should let the Vote pass without looking at some of the right hon. Gentle-roan's statements in introducing his Estimates. As the last speaker said, in relation to the gun position, time after time almost as soon as a programme has been brought before the House it has been rejected as obsolete because it has been insufficient for the growing menace of the international situation. No one can foresee how long the adequacy of the technical equipment that is going to be supplied under Vote III will be sufficient and how soon we may not in turn have to throw it overboard on account of the pledge we have from the Prime Minister on parity on which these Estimates are based. My right hon. Friend had a very legitimate satisfaction on two grounds, firstly that we had doubled our first line strength of aeroplanes in the last two years, and secondly, that there were going to be more deliveries in the next three years than there have been during the 17 years since the War. That is to be welcomed but I do not believe my right hon. Friend's remarks gave us sufficient reassurance that the magnitude of the industrial problems that confront the country is being met. Hon. Members may say that I exaggerate what we may have to foresee under Vote III, but 16 months ago Marshal Petain—and

I feel that one is entitled to quote here the words of such an eminent soldier and citizen—gave the German factory capacity for aircraft at 2,500 machines monthly and the labour involved as 250,000. My right hon. Friend took some satisfaction that we have introduced into the aircraft industry 6,500 more men in the past three months. Let us only hope that the figures for the whole year will be such that the 250,000 in the German aircraft industry is not a menacing figure when compared with our particular achievements.
It may be—let us hope it, is not so—that within the next to o years our Royal Air Force may be faced with some situation entailing action. In the last War the wastage on first line aircraft was approximately 100 per cent. per month at the end of the War and the production of aircraft was approximately 2,000 per month. The right hon. Gentleman takes pride, quite rig fitly, that we have in peace time doublet our Air Force in the past two years from 750 to 1,500, but if the situation arose where aircraft would be needed on a war basis, we should not be able to replace our 100 per cent. of 1,750 metropolitan aircraft in one month. It would probably take on the present basis something like one to two years to replace, and during that time the country would be denuded of the necessary first line defence aircaft. One can confirm the right hon. Gentleman's statement that our first line aircraft are to-day as good or of better performance than any aeroplanes in Europe, but fine aircraft in small quantities do not overcome the industrial problem of large scale production.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in the defence Debate asked a question which I have not yet heard answered, how we stood in regard to the programme; were we late in deliveries? Were the Estimates of the Air Ministry going to be fulfilled? In many directions the House is going to be disappointed in the deliveries that are going to take place during the next year or year and a-half in first line aircraft. Machine tools and lathes which are wanted to buld them are taking 32 weeks to deliver. There is an unseemly scramble among manufacturers endeavouring to obtain the necessary specification materials. Tie obtaining of small parts for aircraft is getting more and


more difficult, and the right hon. Gentleman's Department is not entirely blameless as regards delay. I could give a case of six new aeroplanes waiting for weeks in a shed to be delivered by the manufacturer but unable to be delivered because the Air Ministry had not supplied engine revolution indicators. Under a, system which allows that sort of thing to happen, we cannot with confidence go on saying that the industrial planning of the Air Ministry is adequate. As against this, these difficulties are being overcome, but it is as well to face them and not be complacent about what we have as against the German mass production system of distributing parts to all the engineering firms in their country.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of action by the Royal Air Force in the next year and a half, we should not have to go back to war-time methods in the construction of wooden aircraft for an emergency which entailed 100 per cent. wastage of first line aircraft. When we build two or three new small aircraft for the Air Force, would it not be a wise precaution to have half-a-dozen wooden prototypes of each type in order that the woodworking industry, which can be swung over quickly in the event of emergency, is ready for such a step? The Air Ministry Supply Department should not have the burden of the responsibility of working out these problems. It is the duty of the Supply Department to ensure that the agreed needs of the Air Staff are supplied, but there is such a multitude of problems—labour problems, the supply of materials, watching the production capacity of all our factories—that I would ask whether the Supply Department should not be supplemented by a directorate of production department staffed by those not liable to be moved from the Ministry as soon as they have learnt their job, and to co-ordinate with Sir Arthur Robinson5s Committee. They should work separately from the Supply Department, who already have their hands full in seeing that the technical requirements of the Air Staff are reasonably met.
In my view the last words in the right hon. Gentleman's speech were the best, in which he hoped for the eventual limitation of first line aircraft, because I do not believe there is one of us who is sup-

porting this programme and making suggestions for its efficient carrying out who does not earnestly desire to see a limitation and feel that, until it comes about, the problem of air defence is almost insoluble. But while we are aspiring to that limitation, the Government have to carry the responsibility of the defence of the country, and we all want to see that it is cheap, safe and efficient. We have a common object, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider any suggestions in order that we may achieve it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Baronet must be satisfied with the progress which he is making with these Estimates and I hope therefore he will give a more explicit answer to the questions which I am about to put to him, than he has hitherto given to my inquiries. I have two points to put to him one of which is of minor importance and the other of major importance. I shall deal with the minor point first, as it is the more technical, in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman time to have inquiries made into it. We are voting over £1,000,000 for petrol for the Royal Air Force. We know that very important developments are proceeding in regard to various types of petrol. There is one type, known, I think, as Isoplane, which is reported to give a development in power of from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. when used in a suitable engine. If this type of petrol is developed, I believe it is not too much to say that it would render obsolete a considerable number of our engines. If it were found that it could be produced at an economic rate, I am given to understand that, requiring as it does certain modifications in engine design, it might, within a month render the design of every one of our engines obsolete. I am told that it is not an easy type of petrol to produce and is at present very expensive but I would be interested to learn what the Air Ministry is doing to meet that situation.
I have described that as a minor point though it is potentially a major point, and I come now to my second point which is of great immediate importance to this House and the country. We on these benches are not satisfied with the assurances which we have received with regard to the price to be paid for this


vast aircraft expansion. We have asked, repeatedly, what is being done to see that we do not pay too much and the only assurance we have been able to get is that there will be a costing clause in every contract. No business man would say that that was an adequate safeguard. What type of costing clause is it? What is the wording of the clause? What assurance is there that contractors will not bring in raw materials at inflated prices and show them in the costs? Is the costing to be based on labour and materials or on labour alone and what percentage is it, on whatever basis it is imposed? We have been questioning the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the service Ministers on this point and yet the House appears to be content to allow its primary task to be overlooked, as I contend will be the case if we do not know on what basis we are paying for this vast increase in armaments.
All that I have been able to get by way of an explicit statement from the right hon. Baronet has been the announcement that the Ministry is proceeding on what is called the "I.T.P. system." This multiplication of initials, by the way, is very confusing. I admit that on this side we are even greater offenders in this respect than hon. Members opposite, particularly in our political descriptions—"Natsopa," for example. This I.T.P. system is apparently a system of provisional instructions to proceed. I take it to mean that the Air Ministry, in their discussions with the various contractors have had arguments as to the basis of price, that they have failed to come to agreement with the manufacturers and, as a policy of despair, they have said to the manufacturers, "Go on producing these things, as the need is very urgent and we shall leave the fixing of the price until later."
I hold no brief for the manufacturers but it is just as much in the interest of the State as in their interest to make this inquiry. How long is this policy to continue without some specific basis of price being fixed. I questioned the right hon. Baronet on the matter during his speech. I apologise to him for having interrupted him but I have found that unless one can pin him down to an answer on the spot, to a question of this

kind, when he comes to wind up the Debate he replies to all the compliments and takes no notice of the criticisms or the questions put on serious practical points. The Air Ministry is well known for that and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has, I think, spent hours in replying to compliments and ignoring criticisms of the Department. The House ought to insist on more specific answers on these points. I asked the Minister whether any contractors were refusing to proceed on the I.T.P. system and I was not favoured with a very ingenuous reply. The Minister glided over the point and we do not know now whether my allegation is correct that contractors are refusing to proceed with the manufacture of equipment because they are not satisfied with the system.
Suppose a manufacturer is asked to take a contract for 100 aeroplanes. Some of those aeroplanes may be composed of as many as 50,000 parts, every one of which has to be designed and separately costed. Everybody knows that the manufacturer is incapable of producing them all in his own factory and that a system of extensive sub-contracting exists. When the manufacturer does not know the price which he is going to get, how can he arrange his sub-contracts? It may be all very well for some of the extremely wealthy aircraft manufacturers who have made enormous profits since the War and kept them. They have large financial resources. But are manufacturers generally to be asked to commit themselves to ordering these parts, without knowing how much they will be able to pay to the sub-contractors for them? It may be that some of them will have a good case to make against proceeding on those terms.
I ask, therefore, is it beyond the wit and skill of business men in this country to deal with this as a matter of urgency? It is largely a question of accountancy. It is a question of deciding on a basis of costing that will not involve profiteering. Is there no organisation, no tribunal or court, which could settle that question? If not, I suggest that the Ministry should get together a body of accountants and form them into a tribunal, instead of asking the aircraft industry to rely on the ordinary common law in this matter. The


common law I believe is that if no price is stated "a reasonable price" shall be paid but that would involve litigation and I am sure neither the Ministry nor the manufacturers would wish for that. I suggest that it should be possible to set up some form of arbitral tribunal which could settle these prices in cases where any dispute arose. That is the point of major importance to which I desired to refer. I, for one, am not content and I believe many on these benches are not content that these Estimates should pass without a protest from us on the back benches against the fact that no safeguards at present appear to be provided against profiteering, beyond the good intention of the Service Ministers. That is not enough, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to reassure us.

7.39 p.m.

Sir M. SUETER: Hon. Members in considering this Vote will congratulate Farnborough on producing an anti-ice device—which is a little strip of leather—but I think the right hon. Baronet might have given us a little more information about the experimental work which has been carried out at Farnborough as a result of the large sums of money voted by this House. I think what we are told about this little strip of leather is hardly sufficient information for us. In the very able speech of the Under-Secretary introducing the Estimates he mentioned the geodetic system of construction but he did not inform us who invented that system. I believe it was an officer of the old Royal Naval Air Force who invented it. We would also like to know what firm is using it and whether this new invention can be used by other firms as well. It has struck me that the Short-Mayo composite machine which has tanks in the wings might be used with advantage if there was an opportunity for repeating the design.
On page 47 of the Vote there is an item concerning the purchase and repair of balloons and portable hangars. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) raised the question of kite balloons. It was the Royal Naval Air Service which introduced kite balloons into the Army and Navy, but I do not think that the system of nets hoisted up in the air by kite balloons proved very successful. Indeed

the only machines that I ever heard of being caught in these nets were two of our own. But I would ask the Under-Secretary whether any experiments are being carried out with the more modern type of kite balloons. The Parsifal type and the Cacao types are quite out of date. They have now a better type of kite balloon in France, a distensible type which I understand is very satisfactory. This balloon is being used for the night defence of Paris, and I should like to ask whether any have been supplied for the defence of London. Then there is the new balloon which has its own power and can move about freely by its own power without the necessity for deflating it every time it is taken down. We ought to be told whether experiments with these new types are proceeding
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) is very interested in the question of airships. He has taken a lot of trouble concerning them in the past and in that connection I want to put another question. Now that Germany is building submarines again, has the Minister considered that one of the most effective weapons against the submarine in the late War was the use of small airships as spotters. The small airship on spotting a submarine signalled to the surface craft. The submarine was then chased and an explosive charge dropped over her. The German U boat captains hated to be seen by these little airships. Now that the Germans are reintroducing submarines into their navy, has the Admiralty asked the Air Ministry for small airships of the type which were so effective in the late War?

7.44 p.m.

Mr. WELLS: I also wish to raise the question of airships and to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government is with regard to those machines. Reference has been made to a long-range flying boat costing £40,000 and capable of flying across the Atlantic. In order to get across the Atlantic I believe that this boat would have to be fitted with special tanks taking the place of passengers and freight and that this would give it a range of about 3,000 miles in still air. I cannot help feeling that the heavier than air machine has limitations in regard to long-distance flight. I do not think you can at present build a heavier than air machine carrying passengers and freight with a range of more than


1,200 to 1,500 miles non-stop. Of course, if a breakdown occurs to the machine, you must descend on the land or on the sea wherever you may be, and if it is a break in the machine, it is a very much more serious matter.
There is a machine, which I think we all know, which has crossed the South Atlantic many times with passengers and freight, and that is the Graf Zeppelin. I should like to give the record of the Graf Zeppelin. From 18th September, 1928, to 10th December, 1935, this ship has flown 13,357 hours and a mileage of 847,000. It has carried people to the number of 32,962, and the mail carried has been 35 tons. This ship has made 111 ocean crossings, which include seven crossings of the North Atlantic, one over the Pacific and one across the Arctic Sea. This ship has encountered bad weather on every ocean. Even more striking are the statistics for last year only, when the time flown was 3,519 hours, with a mileage of 220,000, carrying 5,219 people and 14 tons of mail and freight. That is an extraordinary thing, and I think it has proved the value, at any rate to the Germans, of that ship. There is no doubt that the Postmaster-General in this country is interested in it, because I expect he pays many thousands of pounds freightage for our letters. An interesting point is that only once has the Graf Zeppelin had to delay starting from Friedrichshaven, and that was for 24 hours, when the wind was very strong, and the ship in the hangar, but in the summer months it makes fortnightly crossings over the South Atlantic. It may be said that there is only one machine that is doing this work, but even so I think it shows that there are very expert and experienced airmen in Germany, specially trained, who can make that machine do what it has done for this number of years.
Germany is not the only country that has airships, and in this connection I would mention the Goodyear Company in the United States of America, which has been running five or six small ships for 10 years. These ships have totalled 2,000,000 miles, they have operated in 38 States, and they have made 65,000 flights and have carried nearly 200,000 passengers without injury to a single passenger. I understand that they are shortly proposing to form a Netherlands Airship

Company using Zeppelins between New York and Batavia, with intermediate landings at Barcelona, Cairo, and Aden.
I suggest that no country in the world can make better use of long-distance ocean travel than this country, and I do not think we ought to wait and see what other people are doing. I think that some action ought to be taken by this country. Other nations too are using airships. In Russia there are four non-rigid and five semi-rigid airships, and they are building two very large rigid airships to-day. France is still experimenting. The United States of America, I believe, are going to start building airships on a large scale. There is a report issued in January last by the Secretary of the United States Navy of the committee set up to make recommendations as to the future design and construction of airships. It is a report dealing with the use of airships for offensive and defensive purposes, such as coastal patrol service, detection of submarines and mines, guidance of troop convoys and naval vessels through minefields, services for strategic reconnaissance, and as aeroplane carrier. The committee also considered the use of airships for commercial services and for safety. Speaking of these airships, this report states:
All developments of new forms of transport and, more broadly, all new developments are subject to possible hazards. This has been true in marked degree with the airplane, the heavier-than-air form of transport. We have, however, accepted these hazards and casualties as a part of the price which must be paid for all such steps forward.
Regarding the safety of such types of construction, we consider the entire record of the service of small non-rigids and of rigid airships of moderate size, in convoy and patrol services during the Great War and elsewhere as warranting the assertion that safe, useful ships of these types and sizes can be designed, constructed, and operated.
The report then deals with large rigid airships as follows:
On the whole, therefore, with special reference to larger rigid airships, we believe it is practicable to design, construct, and operate such airships with reasonable assurance of safety, etc.
The unanimous opinion of the committee was that:
The Navy Department should continue with a positive and carefully considered programme


I cannot help feeling that if the airships had been left to the Navy in this country, we should have continued to have some airships at any rate, though perhaps not on so large a scale. I should like to see the Air Ministry build a ship on the lines of the Graf Zeppelin, which has been successful, and not of the very large size which was tried before, to train men and make them accustomed to the air. We have practically no men who can work airships in this country, and I think we ought to have an airship for training men and for experimental purposes only. If a civilian airship is built at all, I think it ought to be built by civilians and not by the Ministry, but I think the Government would have to assist, and I hope that any suggestion should receive encouragement from the Government. The Ministry, I hope, will assist by granting the use of mooring masts or sheds, as may be necessary. It may be that if the international situation settles down in the next few weeks, we may have a visit from the new Zeppelin. If so, I hope she will be welcomed, and I think it will create greater interest in airships in this country. In conclusion, I think it would be wise for our Air Ministry to set up a committee to go into the whole question of airships once more.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: Before I refer to the question of Farnborough, may I say how gratifying it is to know that after spending nearly £4,000,000 in the last 10 years on Farnborough, at long last they have discovered something which every other country has had for the last two years. Can the Under-Secretary of State answer the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, namely, whether it is not a fact that the best brains are not to be found at Farnborough but in the private firms that are manufacturing aircraft? Is it not a fact that if there is a really good, intelligent, bright young man at Farnborough, he is nearly always bribed away, because that is what it amounts to, into one of the aircraft manufacturing firms?

7.54 p.m.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I have recently returned from South America, where I had opportunities of confirming everything said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) with regard to the Graf Zeppelin. They say that in Brazil

you can set your clocks by the arrival and departure of the Zeppelin. I do not say that it is an economic service, but I can say this, that Germany in providing a regular service to South America throughout the summer and is certainly showing the flag and impressing the people of South America with the fact that Germany is at any rate trying to keep in communication with that very important market and part of the world. There are other countries besides Germany which are showing the flag. They are France, Italy and the United States of America. They carry the mails at a low rate, they are showing their countries' flags to Argentine, Chilian and Brazilian interests, while we are doing absolutely nothing in that direction.
Another point that I want to make—and I should like an answer about this—is that we have an air attachéin South America who is supposed to represent our air interests in those countries. I understand that he has about eight or ten countries which he is supposed to visit periodically with the object of looking after our air interests, but how does he travel? He is obliged to travel in foreign machines, because he has no machine of his own, and if he goes from Brazil to the Argentine, or from the Argentine to Chile, or from Chile up the coast, he has to travel in foreign machines. That has been going on for many years, and I understand that our people out there have been promised year after year some machine that will show at least that we are in a position to build aeroplanes. People here do not realise the amount of propaganda that is carried out by commercial people in those countries. I saw statements just after a certain accident in Alexandria to the effect that these accidents were very common with British mails and that in fact the British were very backward about making machines. It was said that we had good pilots but the worst machines in the world, and that is why the Brazilian Government were buying foreign machines instead of British. All that, of course, is a complete fabrication and is deliberately put out by the interests concerned, but are there no means of combating that sort of propaganda? The best means is to send out British machines to show the flag and at any rate to allow our air representative in those countries to travel in a British machine. That is all I am asking. I


want to know whether the Minister is doing something about this and whether he will provide a machine for our air attaché in South America.

7.56 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, we are. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) opened this discussion with the request for information about the performance of our latest bombers. That is to say, he described the performance of our latest bombers as being now within almost the margin of the fighters. That is true. The speed of the bombers is going up, but there is a margin still, and I do not know what comment one can make about that. Progress must go on, and I think that perhaps as progress goes on we shall find answers. I think we should be very pleased that the performances with our new machines are going in the way they are. The hon. Member used that point to embark upon the whole policy of defence and offence, and on this particular Vote it would not be possible for me to follow him there. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) described the hitches in our programme in rather a gloomy manner. These things are bound to happen at the beginning of a great expansion programme, when one is setting before oneself such a big task. We are aiming at a very big output, and we have not yet been able to make all the progress that we hope to make very shortly. What we want—and I know my hon. and gallant Friend is with me here—is to put the industry on the broadest possible basis, so that we can get to the production which we shall require eventually in the shortest possible space of time. I feel that we are working satisfactorily towards that end.
The hon. and gallant Member made an interesting point about the production side of the Air Ministry, and there I entirely agree. We have decided to create a new appointment at the Air Ministry under the Air Member for Supply, who will be a Director of Production. This appointment we intend to fill by a very good business man with special experience from outside. The question of wooden construction is also under consideration.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will that new man be a member of the Air Council?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think so. I think he would be finder the Member for Supply, but I am not quite sure about that, because the appointment has not yet been made. I feel that it would be premature to give my hon. and gallant Friend any answer about the possibilities created for all of these new types which are being built, but the matter will be very carefully looked into. I do not think it is safe to assume in any case that we would have to go back to wooden production. I hope that machines will be turned out in the materials in which they were originally designed. I am sorry that the hon. Member should have such a poor opinion about the Air Ministry that he thinks that the only answers they give are answers to compliments. It is good to think that we have had any compliments at all, and the lion. Member himself has, I am sure, contributed to that quota in his day. Let me answer a minor question that was put to me about iso-octane petrol, which is petrol of a very high octane value. All the machines being produced will be able to use iso-octane petrol and all the old machines can be easily adapted to use it.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I was very much concerned to know what steps were being taken to produce the petrol as well as to adapt the machines, in view of its revolutionary effect on the power of the engines.

Sir P. SASSOON: I cannot say what steps we are taking, but we are taking all the steps necessary because we recognise the great importance of this matter. As to the question of contractors, I thought I had made it plain that there was no case of the sort suggested, according to my information. An hon. Member proceeded to say that the procedure outlined as I.T.Ps. was not suitable, and that we should have let these contracts be settled without doing everything we could to see that the prices were as low as possible. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have been glad to see that we were determined to fix the price only when we had all the data we needed. He asked how these contractors do the work ii the price has not been fixed. I explained that they were getting progress payments, that is, they were getting payment; on a percentage of a provisional price. I said that this price was lower than the price which the Department thought that they would


ultimately have to pay. He suggested that it was largely an accounting matter. That is why we have so largely strengthened the accounting staff at the Ministry. We have also secured the assistance of the best business brains in the country, and they are helping us to the best of their ability. We are very glad to have them there.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) was very contemptuous about my reference to a device for preventing the formation of ice on wings. It was a simple device, I said, but it is a very important one, and not less important because it is simple. As to experiments at Farnborough, the people there are there more to investigate the inventions of other people and to try them out. But they were the originators of the automatic pilot, which has been a great help to our pilots. They also developed the "Queen Bee" aeroplane, and many other things. I think that Farnborough fulfils a most important function, and I am sure that the industry think so, too. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) raised the question of whether it was not a fact that private firms were bribing people away from Farnborough. Well, if the people who are trained and work at Farnborough are of such a high standard that they are bribed away, that only shows what an important place Farnborough is.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) raised the question of airships. Our policy is still that of maintaining an open mind and holding a watching brief. We are closely examining the data in regard to progress abroad in other countries which are producing these airships, but the disasters to such ships as the "Akron" and the "Macon," I think it was called, must be remembered. I should not agree in saying that the future of lighter than air aircraft is not justified. What we are doing now in regard to balloons is, I think, the right policy.

Sir M. SUETER: There is the question of kite balloons.

Sir P. SASSOON: We realise what a very important matter it is, but it is a matter about which one does not really want to say too much. The hon. and gallant Member can be assured that we are fully aware of the question of kite balloons.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.9. p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: There are two little matters about which I want to ask for information. With regard to a large gas-holder which lies approximately 2,000 yards north of Heston aerodrome, for the last five years I have been suggesting to the Air Ministry that the time had arrived when this great obstruction to civil aviation should have a beacon on top. The Ministry have always said, in reply to questions in this House, "We have not got the power." Almost the same answer was given again and again in regard to the wireless mast alongside Croydon aerodrome. Pilots always said that one day it would be hit by aircraft. Sure enough, it was hit, and the result was the loss of two or three lives. In the case of the gas-holder, all pilots say the same thing—that one day in foggy weather, or one night, some machine will go into it. For my sins, I had something to do with the building of that gas-holder, and if an aeroplane did go into it there would be a disastrous explosion. There was an explosion at Neunkirchen, in Germany, about two years ago which laid waste the country for a long way around. A large piece of London which has grown up around this gas-holder would be devastated if this obstruction were struck. Has the Under-Secretary really considered this problem? If he has not power, surely the time has come to take power to see that there is a light on the top of the holder.
There is another matter—the question of the waste of public money paid to light aeroplane clubs. I am not by any means satisfied that we are getting the best results out of these clubs. At the moment practically anyone can learn to fly at these light aeroplane clubs. It does not matter whether a person is lame, halt, blind, infirm, a lunatic, a cripple, a fit or unfit man or woman who is taught to fly at the expense of the taxpayer—and no questions whatever are asked.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. Member aware that at any rate in the best of


these clubs, before they begin to instruct a man, the person will have to undergo a medical examination in order that money will not be wasted as the hon. Member suggests?

Mr. PERKINS: There is, of course, a medical inspection, but who does the inspecting? Is it the doctors from the Ministry, or is it one's own doctor? Has the hon. Member ever yet heard of anyone failing in a medical examination for an A licence? I must say I did know of one man who failed—because he had lost one eye and the other was so shortsighted that he could not see across this House. We are teaching to fly, at the taxpayers' expense, all kinds of people who are no use to civil aviation. Questions are asked as to how many people go on with flying when they have been taught, and we have never had a really satisfactory answer. In my view, probably two-thirds who are taught to fly at the expense of the State give up flying in about five years, and therefore they are little or no use if a state of emergency arises. I have brought up this matter on five previous occasions. I know that any suggestion that originates from this House is never considered. Is the Secretary of State absolutely satisfied that we are getting full value for this £25,000 we are voting every year for our light aeroplane clubs? Is there an unanswerable case for its continuance? Will he consider measures used in France for subsidising the light aeroplane movement?

Major OSCAR GUEST: I served as a pilot during the last War. I am sorry to see so little money allotted to the development of civil aviation. Among the troubles, I think, with which we were confronted at the beginning of the War was lack of belief in the aeroplane by people who were not in, the Force and that aeroplanes we flew were out of date. I believe that the Germans were more air-minded in those days than we were. I believe that it is by civil aviation that we shall increase our air-mindedness. Is there no way in which more grants can be allowed to civilians of all ranks of life who are anxious to learn either to fly or to understand aeroplane construction? In my own constituency two days ago people who are interested in aviation were telling me that they would like to be associated with civil aviation, but that

they cannot afford it. Perhaps some of the money might be reserved for assisting the development of air-mindedness throughout the country. I am sure there are a number of young people who want to learn to fly if it could be made easier and cheaper for them to do so. If we looked upon them as a nucleus for war help, or commercial work, we should gain. Could there not be more consideration and more funds allotted for the cause of civil aviation?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I should like to take the opportunity in the Debate to-night to press home two or three points which I raised in the course of the discussion last Tuesday. The Under-Secretary, in view of the large range of matters with which he had to deal, was not able to find time to touch upon more than one of the points I raised, and I was not altogether satisfied with the reply which he gave. I refer to the position with regard to companies other than Imperial Airways. How far are they to be encouraged or permitted to undertake the organisation of services in different parts of the world? I put to the right hon. Gentleman the position of companies who desire to develop the routes to South Africa and South America and across the Atlantic. He was good enough to give a reply, and I will quote what he said:
Certainly we have no intention of obstructing any company from operating any service anywhere, but, as I said in my speech, we do not wish to encourage services which would lead to duplication and waste of money and effort. We learned these lessons by painful and costly experience in other forms of transport both at sea and on land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1936; col. 328, Vol. 310.]
I agree with the general proposition, but it is still a little vague, it cuts both ways and places an outside company in a difficult position. They do not know where they are. Is it not reasonable for a company with aspirations of that kind to go to the Air Ministry and to be given a definite answer to the question: Do you encourage us or advise us to develop routes on these lines; do you definitely say that you think we ought not to do so, and do you say that the Air Ministry cannot look favourably upon it? My information is that advice of the t kind cannot be obtained from the Air Ministry at the present time, and it is not fair to people who are anxious to go ahead, without any


subsidy, to organise a great international service of this kind. There is the further point as to whether, if such a company were organised, it could compete on equal terms for mail contracts. Could it get a contract if it submitted the lowest tender?
There are two other small points with which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal, and which I mentioned the other night. What is the position with regard to directional and blind landing? I know that it is in an experimental stage at Heston at the present time, but what steps are being taken which may lead to it being spread throughout the country, and perhaps made compulsory, as it is in the. United States of America? The other point is the position with regard to the Sperry automatic pilot. Can the Under-Secretary say whether experiments are being carried out, and what action the Air Ministry have taken to encourage the use of that appliance, which is used to a very large extent in the United States of America I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could give some reply on those matters.

8.20 p.m.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I wish to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to a growing grievance among professional pilots in Scotland. At present there must be some 40 B licence pilots in Scotland, and all initial B licence tests have to be carried out in London. That puts the pilot to a great deal of expense and takes up considerable time. These tests are composed of flying such as cross-country tests, night-flying tests, and various technical examinations. I should like the Under-Secretary to consider whether it is not possible for these initial tests to be carried out in Scotland and so encourage more young men to obtain B licences. At the present time it is a great deal more difficult for a pilot to obtain a B licence if he lives in Scotland than it is if he lives in England.
Another point which I would put even more emphatically is that of the qualified professional pilot. When a B licence pilot has been qualified, he has to pass a medical examination every six months. Normally speaking that medical examination is carried out by the Central Medical Board in London composed of military doctors. It is however, true that as far as Scottish pilots are concerned, under

certain conditions, they have to attend the Central Medical Board only once every two years and the other examination in Scotland. I ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not possible to set up a medical board in Scotland. The Under-Secretary no doubt is fully aware that there is a considerable number of professional pilots who resent being examined under the Central Medical Board by military medical officers, and who would much prefer being examined by civil practitioners. Would the Under-Secretary consider the matter from the point of view first of the pilot? The cost to a Scottish pilot in attending the medical examination must be at least £10. He also loses two days employment. Secondly from the point of view of the firms.
There are two civil training schools in Scotland, and they are training young pilots for the Royal Air Force and doing work of national importance. The companies have to lose the employment of these pilots on two days whenever a pilot has to attend the Central Medical Board. Thirdly, the work of the Air Ministry must, at the present time, be very congested, and if a medical board were set up in Scotland, it would relieve the Air Ministry of a good deal of the increased work. There is no reason why a medical board should not be set up in Scotland. Scottish doctors are quite capable of performing this work, and the number of pilots, now about 40, is steadily increasing. I urge the Under-Secretary to do what he can to rectify what is now a, growing grievance and one that may become a great grievance.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: It is so seldom that I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that I must say how delighted I was to hear him raising the question of the unsubsidised air transport companies. The work that these companies are doing deserves the fullest possible support from the Air Ministry and the Post Office. This support has been coming, I believe, from the Post Office, but the same cannot be said of their treatment by the Air Ministry. I want to ask for a greater assurance than the right hon. Gentleman gave us last week concerning the treatment by the French Government of British unsubsidised lines flying from England into


France. It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government ever since air transport commenced on a civil basis to endeavour to make it self-supporting. Here on the lines from London to Paris we have at the moment, in addition to Imperial Airways, which is a subsidised company, no fewer than four British unsubsidised companies successfully flying against the competition of the British subsidised company, Imperial Airways, and the French subsidised company, Air France. We have now reached a stage when these unsubsidised companies are flying at rates for passengers and freight and bullion, which is now a very important part of air transport freight to the Continent, at substantially less figures than the subsidised companies.
Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to foresee the subsidised companies saying to each other, "This is getting serious. Here we have a company not receiving State grants, operating efficiently at rates less than we are, running a commercial service, and making a profit. If this goes on what is going to happen to our subsidies?" I believe that Air France brought the position in which they were being placed on the cross-Channel route before a commission set up by the French Air Ministry to consider the French civil air transport services, and that one of the decisions of this commission was that France must endeavour to eliminate all foreign services flying at less, by way of passengers or freight fares, than Air France. Consequently, all British companies, other than Imperial Airways, flying between England and France, have been given formal notice that unless they raise their fares and freight rates to those of the subsidised companies the French Government will withdraw their permit to fly to France, and the net result will be that the whole of the business which these unsubsidised companies have built up will be swept away and destroyed. I asked a question on this matter, and the feeling of the House was evident from the support I received. I am not at all reassured by what I have heard from the Air Ministry.
The Air Ministry seems to take the view that our chosen instrument is Imperial Airways; that the whole power of the Government and the Foreign

Office will be behind that company, and that if these unsubsidised companies get into difficulties with foreign countries we cannot allow our main air policy to be diverted by having a quarrel on behalf of these unsubsidised companies with a foreign government. That is a fundamental error, and is entirely contrary to the whole basis of the Government's policy regarding civil air transport. Their main aim is to make civil air transport self-supporting. Here are four companies who are making civil air transport self-supporting, and the best way to get away from subsidies for air transport is to see that these unsubsidised companies are not eliminated by any foreign government in this way. I hope the Under-Secretary will give us some definite assurance that the whole power of the Foreign Office is going to be behind these companies in order to prevent their elimination. We do not want to be told that the French Government are within their rights. This country should stand up for the rights of its own nationals, and foreign governments should understand that we can only run reciprocal air services when they observe the decencies of international commerce.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and I have crossed swords before on the subject of light aeroplane clubs, but I have got my point, because the Government are spending much more money to-day than four years ago. I think my hon. Friend completely mistakes the purpose of these clubs. Hon. Members who are interested in flying will agree that they have vulgarised flying and brought it into touch with hundreds and thousands of people in the country, to whom flying before was a closed book. Had it not been for these clubs we should never have had the country standing behind the Government in the increases which are put before us in the White Paper. I believe that they have done a great service to the country in spite of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. PERKINS: I am not in any way antagonistic to light aeroplane clubs. All I want is that they shall be put on a proper basis.

Mr. SIMMONDS: The fact remains that the clubs are receiving per capita much less subsidy than they received 10


years ago, and it would appear that the position which my hon. Friend regards as desirable is being gradually reached. So far as the Heston gas-holder is concerned, I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall the number of questions that have been put to him on this point, but throughout the last three years he has told the House that the matter was being looked into. I can only express gratitude that in the meantime the gas-holder has not been flown into, because, as my hon. Friend said, it will be in due course, and an almighty explosion will then take place. This applies not only to the gasholder, but to wireless pylons—of which there are many and some of which rise to 600 or 800 feet—which are not illuminated at night. That is a sin against those people who go into the air. It is no good the Air Ministry saying that they cannot do anything or asking what they can do; it is essential that the Government, if they desire to encourage aviation, should take a firm line on this matter.
I want now to turn for a few minutes to Imperial Airways. A substantial part of the Vote we are now discussing goes into the pockets of Imperial Airways. I have on many occasions criticised the company, but I would like to note one great change this year. I think it is a most important and fundamental change, because it is a change of heart. In previous years Imperial Airways have always said that they have the exclusive right to receive subsidies in all these areas, namely, in Europe, along the route to the Cape, along the route to Australia and now in the North Atlantic. In the country and on the Floor of this House we have said that it is improper for Imperial Airways to prevent any other company from running a service in their territory with the assistance of the Government in those cases where they do not themselves desire to run the service. Until the last two weeks the whole of Europe was tied up to Imperial Airways. The Government were not permitted to support financially any British company except Imperial Airways in the whole of Europe.
As hon. Members know, there are a, large number of routes on which, for the sake of our national prestige as well as

our commerce, British aircraft ought to be operating. Consequently, I was more than delighted to find that the directors of Imperial Airways have responded to the plea we have so often made, and, without any consideration in return, have agreed that my right hon. Friend should subsidise another company, British Airways, to fly on the route London-Copenhagen-Malmo-Stockholm. That is an excellent beginning, and it shows a, public-spirited attitude towards British civil aviation on the part of Imperial Airways. When they see how much good this has done to their prestige, I trust they will try the experiment again in some other territories where they are not utilising their subsidised position.
Unfortunately, there have been serious accidents, or at any rate one serious accident, during the year which has been the subject of a very large number of questions in this House. I refer to the loss of the "City of Khartoum" off Alexandria. It may be fair to Imperial Airways to examine the basic cause of that accident, in which the public has taken an immense amount of interest. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will be interested to know that the basic cause was the application of sanctions against Italy. Prior to sanctions being applied by the League of Nations, the flying boats of the "City of Khartoum" class were not in the habit, except with a following wind, of flying direct from Crete to Alexandria. Instead they flew from the Western end of Crete, from the Bay of Suvla, into Tobruk in Libya, and from there along the Egyptian coast into Alexandria. When the Italians closed Libya to British civil aircraft and the civil aircraft of all nations members of the League, the "City of Khartoum" was forced to fly from Crete straight to Alexandria. That was the basic cause of the accident. The second cause was that the Air Ministry constantly refused the advice which was given by many hon. Members in 1931 and 1932 that it ought to make provision for new civil aircraft when the present civil aircraft, for one reason or another, became unserviceable, and, as everybody knows, when the unfortunate fire took place in the Scipio type of aircraft in Brindisi Harbour, Imperial Airways were forced to bring these very old flying boats into service again.
The accident unfortunately has taken place and the inquest has been held. That inquest showed that I was not very far of the mark when I pressed my right hon. Friend, on several occasions before the inquest was held, to make greater efforts to have divers sent down to inspect the hull of the flying boat. In the course of the inquest the inspector of accidents said that he desired more technical information. Even now insufficient efforts have been made to examine the hull, and I have that on the very best authority. I would like to inquire of the Under-Secretary whether he has really used all the power of the Air Ministry to ask the assistance of the vast concourse of Naval personnel in Alexandria Harbour to come and either raise the hull, which is only 60 feet deep, or send divers down to examine important details which may throw light on the crash.
So far as the technical side of Imperial Airways is concerned, we have this year seen three main developments of great interest. The first is the new Armstrong Whitworth land plane, carrying some 50 passengers; the second is the new Short flying boat; and the third is the Mayo composite aircraft. During the Committee stage of these Estimates I was very sorry to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) give some figures which appeared to me to be very wide of the mark. I would like to suggest to her that, although she is usually well informed on these matters, her informant in this case has led her somewhat astray. She said that the new Short flying boats had a maximum range of only 1,500 miles, and that they would not be ready until 1937. She went on to compare them with an American boat, the "S. 43," which she said had a maximum range of no less than 3,000 miles and was able to carry a pay-load of from 3½ to 5 tons. Of course, she meant the "S. 42," and doubtless that will be corrected in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I would like to say to the House, and I think it is most important, that, as we have built up a very considerable market in civil aircraft in foreign countries, it is not in the interests of any section of the community, least of all those employed in building these aircraft, that our foreign friends should get the impression that we are now building flying boats

which are substantially less efficient than those of America. Therefore, I would like to say that the range of the new Short boats is not 1,500 miles, as my hon. Friend believed, but the maximum range is 3,000 miles, and at that range the boat will be capable of carrying 1,000 pounds of pay-load. Of course, we think of the China Clipper flying across the Pacific and sometimes flying 3,000 miles, but that is a good example of how careful one must be when making these comparisons. I believe that on every flight of the China Clipper across the Pacific it has been completely stripped of all internal accommodation—no seats, no buffets, no lounges, but simply the bare hull. These things account for a substantial part of the weight.

Mrs. TATE: Nobody would be more delighted to find that the Short flying boat has the range which the hon. Member mentioned, but if I gave these figures and if they are proved to be wrong, I can only say that they were the specifications of the new Short flying boat given in "Flight and the Aeroplane."

Mr. SIMMONDS: I can assure my hon. Friend that since she made her speech, which caused me grave concern, I have take a great deal of trouble to obtain the figures. Among other things, I have obtained the specification figures given by the manufacturers of the American boat to which she referred. In our new Short boat the whole of the equipment for night flying weighs more than 1,800 lbs. The total useful load of the American boat to which my hon. Friend referred was only 8,000 lbs., so that if that 1,800 lbs. for the night flying equipment is omitted, it will be seen that the comparison is completely vitiated. Then my hon. Friend turned from the Short boat to the Mayo composite air boat, and I think that she used the most unladylike terms in calling it a flying abortion. The fact remains that she, with other hon. Members, has on numerous occasions protested against the lack of experimental aircraft and the need for cutting adrift from the conventional and trying something fundamentally new. Imperial Airways, with the support of the Air Ministry, are making these experiments in the Short Mayo composite aircraft, and I suggest that it is a little early to turn it down flatly in the way my hon. Friend thought well to do until all the


experts concerned have carefully investigated the possibilities of this type of craft. That craft will shortly be flying, and if, as I am sure she will be, my hon. Friend is honest with herself and the House, she will say during the next Air Estimates that she grossly under-estimated the potential value to air development of this craft.

Mr. TINKER: Cannot the hon. Members settle these domestic differences outside?

Mr. SIMMONDS: It is not a domestic difference at all. These are points which will, among other things, substantially influence whether foreign nations purchase British civil aircraft or go to Germany, France or America. When Lancashire is endeavouring to get the aircraft industry to set up factories in that county it behoves hon. Members from that area to take some interest in the Air Estimates. Anybody who has noticed the Parliamentary conduct of civil aviation since the vast increase in the Royal Air Force will be aware that the system has commenced to fail. When the Royal Air Force was but a slender force, the Under-Secretary was able to give a great deal of time to civil aviation. To-day, as his replies to our questions indicate, he has not that time, and I go so far as to say, in view of the fact that the increase in the strength of the Air Force is the paramount object of the Air Ministry, that he would be wrong to give his time to civil aviation. That emphasises that hon. Members who put before the Prime Minister two years ago their views on necessary changes in the handling of civil aviation were correct when they said that there should be an Under-Secretary for Civil Aviation—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That would require legislation.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I will content myself with saying that we regret the Under-Secretary has not, in view of his greater responsibility, been able to give as much time as he was wont to to civil aviation, and we trust that the powers that be will duplicate him as soon as possible. I want to congratulate the Air Ministry on the efforts which it is making to speed up the Empire air service in spite of the calls on the industry for service aircraft, and I trust that the difficulties with Australia will be successfully surmounted.

8.52 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I merely wish to stress the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and the Noble Lord the Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale) with regard to medical examinations for both A and B licences. The hon. Member for Stroud said that he knew very few cases where people had been failed for the A licence, but I know of several, and I know that they have not always been failed for justifiable reasons. The time has come when we should follow the example of America in regard to both A and B licences and have a large number of the medical profession certified as capable of passing people for these licences. That would obviate the difficulty which the Noble Lord mentioned with regard to people coming from Scotland to London in order to obtain their B licence. In America there is a large panel of medical men who have special apparatus and special instructions as to the physical requirements necessary to enable a pilot to be in a proper condition for flying. That is not always understood by the ordinary practitioner. I would urge that when we are seeking to make the country more air-minded, the time has come to set up a proper panel of medical men with these requirements.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I want to put before my right hon. Friend the case of the light aeroplane clubs. He knows that the agreement to which the Government have come with the light aeroplane clubs will end next year. There is a strong feeling in the light aeroplane club movement that some alteration should be made in the subsidy arrangements within the next few months, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we might have a method of payment based on flying time instead of on licences. I do not wish to go into that point at any length now, but owing to the demand to-day for instructors, not only in the Royal Air Force but, particularly, in civil flying, this particular type of trade union—as I am sure hon. Members of the Labour party will be pleased to know—is able now to command a very much more substantial rate of pay. That item costs flying clubs a large amount of money. If a club which had to pay £400 or so a year to an instructor is now required to pay £700


or £800, obviously a subsidy which before was adequate for the club does not now suffice.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Does the hon. Member suggest that the clubs shall have these subsidies without. a means test?

Mr. EVERARD: I am not talking about butter or margarine, I am talking entirely about light aeroplane clubs. The Maybury Committee Report is expected, I am told, very soon, and I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he sets up, as I understand the Air Ministry are likely to do, a permanent committee to consider all problems dealing with the organisation of civil flying in this country, not to forget private owners' interests. I have become very frightened at the position of private owners in civil flying, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to let us at least have a voice, even if we are out-voted, when this committee is set up.
The last point I wish to raise is that I am not very well satisfied with the position which the Air Ministry take up regarding the grant of "B" licences to people who come out of the Service. I think an officer coming out of the Service gets a "B" licence for flying very much too easily. I am not criticising the ability of Royal Air Force pilots, but everybody knows that flying in a squadron is a very different thing from taking people across country in a multi-engined machine, and I am not satisfied with the manner in which the tests for commercial pilots' licences on different types of machines are carried out. As my right hon. Friend well knows, any "B" licence pilot to-day can pass out any other "B" licence pilot on a new type of machine. I have reason to believe that these tests are very often carried out, so to speak, in the by-ways and hedges. I am not at all sure that they are always adequate tests, especially in the matter of landings.
I would refer my right bon. Friend to the disaster, which we all so much regretted, on the day when his late Majesty inspected the Fleet, which happened to an aeroplane which had left Heston loaded with people. The Air Ministry ascertained through their inspector that the cause of the disaster was entirely due to the pilot's lack of knowledge of

that particular type of machine. I would point out to my right hon. Friend how very dangerous a thing that is for civil aviation. I want him to make perfectly certain that "B" licences are granted only to persons capable of flying civil machines, and that the tests are carried out before competent people. I would ask, in conclusion, whether my right hon. Friend can tell me what is the position of the pilot in that case. I know that the Air Ministry have power to take away a licence, or to put certain difficulties in the way of pilots who have obviously committed as error of judgment, and I should like to know what was done in that case.

9.1 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: As to the last point raised by my hon. Fr end the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) the Air Ministry have power, of course, to suspend a pilot's licence. The other points he mentioned, all very important points, are under consideration by the Maybury Committee, and I hope that we shall have a report from them shortly.

Mr. EVERARD: In the particular case which I mentioned will my right hon. Friend tell me, or at any rate let me know later, what actually happened to that pilot?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, I will. On the question of the subsidy to light aeroplane clubs, the present contract or arrangement expires, I believe, in May of next year. The best method of dealing with the money available for light aeroplane clubs is at present under consideration, and I hope that by the date of the expiry of the present arrangement regarding the light aeroplane clubs the Air Ministry will have come to some definite conclusions, and that it will be possible to introduce new systems and methods which will prove satisfactory to all the clubs. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) raised questions concerning the gasometer at Heston. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston complained that this matter had been under consideration for a very long time. I am sorry to say that that is true, because it is not a very easy question on which to come to a decision. It raises considerations of what constitutes an obstruction and what does not, and of where we are going to stop in


this matter. Is every church steeple to be regarded as an obstruction? Obviously the matter is one upon which it is not easy to come to a decision. I agree, however, that the gasometer at Heston raises an altogether exceptional issue. It is a very large, very high and very inflammable obstruction, and it lies dangerously near a very important air route. Therefore I think I can say that this case will be treated exceptionally and on its merits.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Does that mean that something will be done in the course of the next two months say, because my right hon. Friend has tried to justify the delay in making a start by saying a good deal of investigation has been necessary? Can he say that something will be done in the next two months?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I am afraid I cannot go as far as that, but only say that we intend to treat it as an exceptional case, because we realise its importance just as well as does my hon. Friend. I think the hon. Member for Stroud attacked light aeroplane clubs rather unjustly. Our system of subsidising light aeroplane clubs is different from that under which the French subsidise their clubs. The subsidies over there are intended to enable clubs and individuals to buy aircraft whereas the primary object of the system here is to secure an increase in the number of trained pilots. It is a different system altogether, and I think our light aeroplane clubs are on a better footing.
The hon. arid gallant Member for North West Camberwell (Major Oscar Guest) made a speech with which I entirely agreed. In the last three years the expenditure on civil aviation has risen by 65 per cent., which shows that we are anxious to do what we can and that we are spending more money on civil aviation. The remarks of the hon. and gallant Member were extremely valuable. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) quoted an answer which I gave to his question the other day. When I listened to my answer from his lips I thought it was an extremely clear answer. I can only repeat what I said in that reply. I might supplement it by saying that, of course, every case must be examined on its merits. As to radio beacons, as I have often said in this connection, those used in foreign

countries are still very much in an experimental stage. We hope that the new systems that we are trying will be successful, and I do not think any time will be wasted. In regard to the Sperry automatic pilot, I will let the hon. Member know. I do not believe that it is better than our own, but I will look into it. The question of Scotsmen wishing to apply is one which I looked into the other day. There are very few, and the number of B licences in Scotland is very small at present. I do not think the numbers would justify the setting up of a special medical board.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: The number of professional pilots in Scotland is steadily increasing, owing to the recent creation of two civil training schools. The number of B licensed pilots in Scotland has been very substantially increased this year. Is it not the case that the number of pilots who have recently started work as professional pilots in Scotland may have been overlooked?

Sir P. SASSOON: Very few applications have been received from Scotland for "B" licences, and I do not see any reason for creating a special medical service. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) raised the question of unsubsidised companies flying to Paris and elsewhere from Croydon. I would remind him that when the original application for permission on behalf of the Hillman's Services was made, the French demurred, because of the probable adverse effect upon traffic of the Government subsidised services, and they only authorised it on the understanding that the position would be reviewed after a period. The French are not alone in insisting upon an agreement with regard to time tables and fares. When we wanted to start a new service to Scandinavia, all the countries over which we had to pass made the same stipulation. The Department at present has no case to argue with France. We have, none the less, said that if these companies can find common ground based on arguments of substance on which to make representations, we will give them support. I think that is all I have to say.

SUPPLY [12TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1936.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceding 158,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,339,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,073,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £926,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,616,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £234,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Civil Superannuation, and other Non-Effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1936.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge (reduced by a sum not exceeding £97,000 to be transferred from the Supplies Suspense Account), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Expense of the Royal Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, &c."

First Resolution read a, Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.12 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: As compared with the armies of the world to-day, the force that the Minister is asking for is very moderate, but it is much more powerful than it appears from the numbers. One would think that an increase in power and strength would mean that one got more value for less money. As a matter of fact, the cost is increasing by strides. The outstanding thing is that the Army is numerically below standard. During the Debates on the Estimates there was a good deal of discussion as to the best means of recruiting. A great many suggestions were made, but some were made in ignorance of the facts of the conditions of the soldier's service. I dealt with one which did not, and will not receive much consideration from the Government. If man power is decreasing in this nation you are going to suffer when men offer themselves if certain standards are desirable. If I read the signs aright, although we had a "C3" standard during the last War, we look very much like having a "C4" standard during the next war.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the desired number, and an increased number of applicants, I suggest that he might consider dealing better with the dependants of soldiers who lose their lives or die from disease while their service is going on. The right hon. Gentleman said that the soldier himself was the best recruiter. The soldier from a working-class home is a potential earner, and very often when a soldier dies or is killed, the home loses the assurance of someone who might help them in the future. The War Office might consider being more generous than they are at the present time in considering dependants, when soldiers die. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the educational side of the Army. In times past the soldier was very often considered to be a sort of inferior citizen when he enlisted, and it is very striking how the status of the soldier in the Stage has risen as compared, say, with the days of the Crimean War, or even with 1914. The soldier to-day is in a different category


altogether as a citizen, and one thing that has made a considerable contribution to that alteration has been the educational system in the Army.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I rather think that that would come on a Vote which is not now before the House.

Mr. LAWSON: I was dealing, as I thought I should be able to deal, with the men who are needed and the general treatment that they will receive.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On Report, we are strictly limited to that which is before the House, and the question with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing would come under another Vote, for education, which is not before us to-night.

Mr. LAWSON: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your Ruling, but that was one of the chief points that I wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman, as it seems to me to be important in connection with the general status of the soldier. My hon. Friends and I have certain matters that we want to raise on some of the other Votes, and some of my friends have points that they want to raise on this Vote. We do not intend to vote against these numbers, because we agree that, if we have to have an Army, it must be an efficient Army. We shall take our opportunity later on the other Votes.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: Before we agree to this Resolution, I should be glad if the Secretary of State for War would give us a little further information. I understand, from the figures which he has submitted to the House, that it is suggested that this year the establishment of the Regular Army, including British troops in India, shall be increased by, in round figures, 6,000 men. We are already 10,000 men short of our existing establishment. Moreover, during the coming year some 26,500 men will be due to leave the Colours. If we look at the numbers of recruits that have actually been taken into the Army last year and the year before, we see that in each year less than 26,000 recruits have been secured. Therefore, if recruiting continues at the present rate, at the end of this year we shall not have got enough recruits to replace the

men who will leave the Colours this year, let alone make any impression on the 10,000 that we are already short of last year's establishment, and still less to go any way towards the extra 6,000 men for whom we are now asked to provide. Putting it in another way, if we are to replace the men who leave the Colours this year, make good the present deficiency, and provide for the increased establishment for which the Government now ask, we shall have to find some 42,500 recruits this year.
I submit that, unless we have some reasonable hope of getting the recruits required, we are deceiving oureslves and deceiving our friends abroad by making this nominal increase in the establishment. As I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend would willingly indulge in deception of that kind, I am driven to the conclusion that, from the sources of information at his disposal, he has some grounds for hoping that the recruits required, or at all events a large number of them, will be forthcoming. I want to invite him to-night to tell the House what grounds he has for this hope. I know that he has suggested one or two improvements. He has suggested an improvement in housing, and an improvement in the matter of subsistence allowances when on leave—both admirable things in themselves, and calculated, no doubt, to have some effect on this problem. I see also that it is proposed that an increased sum should be spent on advertising for recruits—a very reasonable provision, no doubt, in the circumstances. But I want to submit that all these things of which we have been told, added together, unless there is something else of which we do not know, cannot lead us for one moment to suppose that there will be an increase in the number of recruits this year anything like sufficient to fill the gap to which I have alluded.
It is not as though the men were not available. Everyone knows that among the unemployed there are great numbers who, from age or from lack of physical fitness, cannot be counted as men available for the Army; but I do not suppose that anyone in this House would deny that there are to-day among the unemployed plenty of young able-bodied single men eminently fitted to be taken as recruits if they were to come forward. There is no compulsion in the matter;


they must be induced to come forward by the conditions of service offered to them. I want to ask the Secretary of State specifically to tell us whether he is satisfied with the present conditions of service, and, if not, what steps he proposes to take with a view to overhauling those conditions. The problem is a very grave and a very urgent one, and I venture to submit to the House that we should hardly be doing a reasonable thing in agreeing to this increase in the British Army on paper unless the responsible Minister can hold out to us some hope that that increase will be made a reality.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: It is refreshing to see sitting before us one real live Cabinet Minister in charge of a Defence Department. I complained earlier about not being able to speak directly to the other two, because I think that the three Ministers in charge ought to be in this House. I want to touch upon one or two points in reference to the number of men in the Army. There is to be an increase of 6,200. I gathered from the War Minister that the number at present is not sufficient, and that recruiting has not worked out as well as he would have liked, and it is time that the House concentrated its attention upon the reasons why that is the case. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in thinking that it is largely due in many cases to lack of physical development because of the conditions under which many of our people have to live. I have referred once or twice to the cotton industry, and the very low wages paid in that industry, which must have an effect on members of the families concerned. At the present time the children of cotton operatives are not getting proper sustenance, and very few of them are fit for service in the Army even if they had any desire to enter it. I hope the House will take a long view of this matter. If it wants fighting men, it must see that they are properly fed and that decent wages are paid.
Another point that I want to raise is in reference to one recruit who is anxious to get out of the Army. I have done my best to persuade the Secretary of State for War to get him out, and I think it is a matter that I ought to ventilate in the House to-night. This

young man got into trouble with a young woman, and like many others he joined the Army to get out of the way. Remorse struck him after he had joined up, and he returned to the girl and married her. A child has been born, and an offer of work has been made to him. I have made an appeal to the Minister to allow this young man out of the Army. To-day I am sorry to say that I have had a letter saying that he cannot do that, that an allowance of 19s. is given to the man and that he should contribute some of it to the girl, that the girl is living with her parents and that they can manage. I claim that that is not fair. Either some marriage allowance should be given to the man or else he should be allowed out of the Army and enabled to go back to work.
I went to see this family. The mother of the girl wrote to me to see whether I could have the matter investigated. It is a very decent home where this girl lives. Her mother is in poor circumstances. They have a sort unemployed. The father was on the point of becoming unemployed. He said to me, "I have the girl and her child to keep. I cannot turn her out. Is it fair that I should be saddled with them?" I said, "It is not, but the Minister for War has assured me that he is prepared to consider cases of real distress. The position is that at the moment he cannot see his way to do anything in this case." I hope that as the result of my appeal the Minister will make a further investigation and see whether he cannot do something. Any action by him will have its after-effects. A gesture in the right way would enable young men to know that if there was a serious case for investigation they might be able to get out of the Army and return to work. But a bad gesture in such a case would have a serious effect on recruiting.
The other matter I want to raise is in reference to the mechanisation of some of the cavalry regiments. I have hammered at that for years, and the right hon. Gentleman has skittled me by saying that I have become obsessed with the idea. But the change that has overcome his point of view is rather remarkable. En the Debate on the Estimate last Thursday he said:
It has already, been announced that eight cavalry regiments are to he mechanised in the coming year … Here I should like


to pay a tribute to the spirit in which this decision has been accepted by the cavalry regiments concerned. There is no country where the love of the horse is more profound and more widespread than this country.
And further on he said:
I heard the other day of an officer who was particularly devoted to horses and had expressed in the past his greatest contempt for every form of machine. He was a fine authority on horses, and was much consulted about horses. Within a year of his regiment being mechanised he has become an equally expert authority on motor cars, so that ho is now consulted by the same friends upon the internal difficulties of their cars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1936; col. 2358, Vol. 309.]
That is what I said at the time, and I said that it was only the obsession of the cavalrymen that was costing the country a lot of money in keeping on obsolete things. I could see that the time had come when horse warfare had gone. It would be a very difficult thing to put horses on aeroplanes if the occasion arose for quick transport. These things could have been seen many years ago, and I say that we have lost many thousands and millions of pounds by our delay in this matter.

9.32 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I cannot be accused of having belonged to a Service that would predispose me in favour of cavalry. The hon. Member who has just spoken appears to me to think too much in terms of what we saw on the Western Front. If you think of the Western Front, and in terms of La Basso payee, the horse in warfare is obsolete. But we have responsibilities in other parts of the world. I did not realise the scope for mounted troops until recently I was in Poland on the front fought over by the Russians and Austrians. I was so impressed at the type of ground I saw that I made inquiries and was told that in the new German Army they are making provision for the equivalent of 20 British mounted cavalry regiments. The hon. Member will not suggest that the German General Staff does not know a good deal about war. If they are having that number of cavalry, we who have responsibilities over very "unmechanisable" parts of the world must have cavalry also. Mechanisation is coming, and rightly, but you cannot hurry these things. It has not yet been proved that our types of mechanised machines in substitution for horses are satisfactory, and

it is not until better types have been evolved that the present mounted troops can be replaced. As a very keen officer, in an arm that is partially mechanised, said to me recently "my grandmother's Daimler goes beautifully over Salisbury Plain "

9.35 p.m.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: It is only too certain that the time may come when we may require the cavalry arm. In many theatres of war where we have been previously engaged we may be engaged again in days to come and the total abolition of the cavalry would be a frightful blunder. Whatever you may do in forming other types of organisation, you cannot make horses, and, if you destroy your last cavalry regiment, you will be in a difficult position in certain kinds of terrain, such as Iraq, where you will not be able to use tanks anything like as efficiently as horses. The right hon. Gentleman must be deeply concerned with the question of the pool of drafts in time of war. I am very anxious, now that he has done so much to improve the conditions of service in the Territorial Force, that we should all feel confident that Territorial units will not be broken up in time of war. I want to know whether he will not consider the possibility of preventing any such disaster as that and at the same time having 'a flow of recruits for the Regular Army by re-establishing the Special Reserve. It was a very cheap form of insurance for providing recruits for the general pool of drafts for the Army in time of war, and, even if it was only on an experimental scale, he would be doing perhaps the greatest thing imaginable for some of these young unemployed if he could put them under canvas for six months, train them, feed them, and clothe them. It would restore their morale and give them hope once more in life—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not develop this. It comes under Vote 2.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman really is disturbed. I think he must be. It is, I believe, along those lines that he can find the best material for filling the gaps in the Regular Army.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. PORRITT: I wish to stress the importance in my opinion of the


permanent staff instructors. I notice that in Vote A the numbers are slightly increased, but I should have liked to have seen their numbers larger because of their tremendous influence in recruiting for the Regular Army. Under the present regulations they cannot recruit for the Territorial Army; they can only recruit for the Regular Army. They would be of much more use if they could first of all recruit for the Territorials and then for the Regular Forces. We should recruit more for the Regular Army through the channels provided by the Territorial Army. I am certain that many men will not join the Territorial Army because they do not know what they are in for, and it is far more natural that they will not join the Regular Army because the whole conditions of life are completely different from their normal occupations. If the permanent staff instructors of a Territorial battalion could induce men to enter the drill hall and learn something of the career in the Territorial Army we should see a real improvement in recruiting.
I should like to mention the case of the officers. We must rely for recruiting on the Officers Training Corps. Here again I do not think there is sufficient connection between the Officers Training Corps and the Territorial Army or the Regular Army. Take my own case. I was a very ordinary member of an Officers Training Corps. I never rose above the rank of a private. As soon as I left school I was only too pleased to get rid of the restrictions of the Officers Training Corps and I missed great opportunities. It was not until some years later that I joined the Territorial Army. Sometimes I wish that I had joined the Regular Army. I feel that if the Officers Training Corps could give a greater insight into the opportunities offered to Regular officers we should realise that we stand to gain much more help from those associations of young men, on whom we must rely. I know that in my own district we cannot get the right type of men as officers, public school men, who have previous training not only in public schools but in secondary schools as well through the Officers Training Corps. We lose all contact with them as soon as they leave school. They cannot know, except by

attachment to a Territorial battalion, what opportunities there are for recreation and public service.

9.42 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I wish to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The first was with regard to getting one of his constituents back out of the Army. I had a similar case which led me into acrimonious correspondence and discussion with the Under-Secretary. It was a distressing case as his father was dying of cancer. His mother kept a public-house. He got out of the Army, but about two years later I had a most pathetic appeal from him to get back into the Army. He had sold the public-house and could get no other job. It is always necessary to be very careful in these cases and to be quite certain that the man has permanent employment.

Mr. TINKER: This man has a permanent job.

Lord APSLEY: Even so, he might change his mind and wish to go back into the Army later on.
The other point was with regard to the cavalry. The hon. Member and I have often had discussions on it. The duty of cavalry—reconnaissance, rearguard actions and pursuit—must be conducted by whatever means are available. It does not matter whether they are on horses, camels, or donkeys or in motor cars or light tanks or aircraft. We want the best, quickest and most effective means of transport to get these functions performed. Horses are the most difficult to provide. In country where there are roads, mechanical vehicles can be used and mechanised cavalry will be of avail, but in the mechanisation of cavalry regiments they should continue their cavalry training and have a certain number of horses on which recruits must do their riding school and undergo cavalry training. Apart from the fact that that will help them in any kind of vehicle that they may be called upon to use, including aircraft, there is always a very considerable chance of having to operate in country where mechanical vehicles cannot be used—hilly, rocky, boggy, woodland country where there are no roads. In that case, there arises the difficulty with which we have often been faced in the past and in which it is necessary to


mount whoever you can get hold of, in whatever way is available—on mules, or donkeys or whatever you can find—and trust for the best. We ought to see, therefore, that we have plenty of men who are trained in that respect. There are large numbers of horses, particularly in Egypt, which will become available now owing to the fact that the regiments to which they were attached have been mechanised. I hope that those horses will not be given to the Egyptian peasants or unnecessarily slaughtered, but will be drafted into the cavalry regiments which are still mounted and the establishment of those regiments increased.

9.46 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is completely successful in all his undertakings. He attributes my own elevation to his efforts and if he undertakes to perform the same task in respect of my two hon. Friends who reply in this House for the Navy and the Air Force I am sure we shall all hope that he will be equally successful. I do not think he was in this place when I replied to the Debate on the Estimates, or he would have heard that on that occasion I paid him a tribute. I expressed some surprise that he had not taken his usual part in the Debate on the Estimates, and I ventured the supposition that it was because he thought he had won his battle and therefore forebore having his usual tilt at the cavalry. He has, however, returned to the charge to-night. Apparently, he could not allow the occasion to pass without taking part in the battle or at any rate sounding a paean of triumph over his victory, with the inevitable result that once more the cavalry responded to the challenge. He will forgive me if I, on this occasion, refuse to take any part in the conflict. The question is one which the House is always prepared to argue at length, and great feeling and eloquence are always expressed on both sides.
I can assure him, with regard to the special case which he raised, that I shall again look into it and that I shall also examine carefully into any cases which he brings to me. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) pointed out, these cases have to be very carefully considered. It is all very well

for a young man to say that he has been offered a good lasting job and that he has just incurred the responsibility of matrimony, but in the Army he is earning 19s. a week with full upkeep and he can make what is not such a bad contribution towards his family. I notice that, owing perhaps to a slip, the hon. Member for Leigh in describing the circumstances of this case mentioned that there was one unemployed son in this family. It seems extraordinary that the son who is in the Army should have a good job open to him, while, apparently, the other son who is not in the Army and is unemployed should not have that job open to him. It is very difficult in these days to be certain that any job will prove a lasting one and in many cases I think a young man in those circumstances would do better by remaining in the Army and would be more likely in the end to get work and to be able to make an important and lasting contribution to the support of his family. However, as I say, I shall look into the case and see whether there are any special circumstances in it which escaped our notice when it was first considered.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) reminded us of the difficulty of recruiting, and referred to the number of rejections that were made on physical grounds. There is a slight improvement in that respect. The percentage has fallen and while I do not pretend that it has fallen very much or that the fact is very reassuring, yet, as far as it goes, it is all to the good. It is not within my sphere to deal with the conditions of the people generally in regard to nutrition. That is a matter for the Ministry of Health and a great many steps are being taken in that direction to improve the nation's physique. Any further steps which can be taken will be welcomed by everybody and by nobody more than those responsible for the War Office. It is some slight encouragement to know that the percentage of rejections on this ground have slightly fallen in the present year.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was a prophet of gloom. He said it was impossible to get the recruits we wanted this year. He asked me whether I hoped to get them and how I hoped to get them. I do not think it is impossible to get them but I recognise that it is a big task. We fully realise the


great difficulties that lie before us. I have made some suggestions myself as to ways in which we hope to encourage recruiting. I have asked hon. Members to make their suggestions. They have done so, and all those suggested means and measures will be taken into consideration. I have no secret plan which makes me confident of accomplishing my purpose but I am considering a great many schemes which I hope will develop and prove useful. These however cannot usefully be discussed until they have been further examined and their value proved. What I am relying upon more than anything else is the assistance of my colleagues in this House. They can act as recruiting agents in their own constituencies and bring home to the people of the country what their duty is and also what an advantageous opening in life the Army has to offer a great many of our young men.
I appealed the other day to hon. Members opposite for their assistance and I feel that many of them will be prepared to give it. I welcome the tributes of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and the hon. Member for Leigh to the type of man who joins the Army now. The type going into the Army and the type coming out of the Army in these days are vastly changed from those of 25 to 50 years ago and the more it is known what a good life the Army provides and what good educational facilities it provides, the better. I cannot go into the question of education now but hon. Members opposite will see if they inquire into the Estimates, that more soldiers every year are getting certificates of education. I can assure them that the educational staff very carefully supervise the work and that we get the very best men for it that we can afford.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that many parents become anti-recruiters because they have lost sons in the Army and have received no financial recognition whatever I think that the authorities ought to act in a more generous spirit in that respect.

Mr. COOPER: That, with the other suggestions put forward by hon. Members will be considered, but all these proposals would cost money. At present, if a man loses his life, owing to Army service, his

dependants get a pension. If his death is not attributable to Army causes, that is not the case. We have to rely upon our medical advisers to say whether a man's death is attributable to his Army service or not. It would be a revolutionary change to say that the dependants of everybody who happened to be in the Army and who lost his life in any way while in the Army should be entitled to pension. However, all these questions and all the suggested methods of recruiting, are now engaging our earnest attention. I do not take as gloomy a view as does my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I believe that the country itself is waking up to the importance of being properly defended. and I think also that the steps which are being taken will bring home to the people both the value and the amenities of Army life in such a way that, as a result of a year of strenuous work, we shall have a very much better report next year with regard to recruiting.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: The right hon. Gentleman has just made some appeal to Members of this House to help him in recruiting. I think probably nothing has so much effect upon recruiting as do the prospects that a man will have when he leaves the Army. I know we have vocational training and all that kind of thing, but at the same time, if only they had some system at the War Office by which, after a man had left the Service at the end of the year, they could ascertain what happened to him, it would make a great deal of difference. If they could have some kind of record at the War Office as to the eventual fate of these men, showing what callings they were taking up and also the percentage of men who got jobs on leaving the Army—

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. I had a very good speech spoiled because I could not deal with this matter.

Mr. ALBERY: I have not been called to order by you, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I hope I may finish my few remarks. There is only one other observation that I wanted to make and that was that if it were possible to bring back those men who return from foreign service six months or a year before their time of service ended, that would be of great help to them in getting employment. It would give them six months or a year


in which to look round for a job here instead of coming straight back from abroad and then, as they are always inclined to do, taking their discharge at once and not immediately getting employment.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Mr. Duff Cooper, Sir Philip Sassoon, Lord Stanley, and Sir Victor Warrender do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

"to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented acordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

10.59 p.m.

Mr. EDE: Some explanation has been given to the House with regard to the expenditure of £1,100,000 that is proposed for the erection of barracks for three infantry battalions in Hong Kong. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily large sum of money to spend on accommodation for, comparatively speaking, so few troops, and I do not think the House ought to pass it without some further explanation being given. It will be found on page 203 of the Army Estimates. A sum of £200 has already been spent, presumably on preliminary plans and so on, and during the coming financial year it is anticipated that a further £5,000 will be spent. I do not know what the total value of Hong Kong as a whole is, but I should have thought £1,100,000 would buy up a very considerable part of it at the present time, and one would like to know exactly what it is proposed to erect in exchange for this tremendous sum of money.
I also notice that there are proposals in this Vote for dealing with the accommodation at, Blackdown. At the moment the accommodation there consists almost entirely of hutments, and I hope that the proposed quarters included in these Estimates will be both more permanent and

more sightly than the Army Council have hitherto erected there. The site is close to some of the most beautiful stretches of country, at the Chobham Ridges, and suddenly to get into this collection of hutments is a very severe shock. I hope the Army, when they are going on with their building programme, which under these Estimates and under the White Paper will be very extensive, will have some regard to the surroundings of the buildings which they have to erect, and that they will not inflict on the county in which these buildings are to be situated some of the eyesores that at present are to be found.
Part of the difficulty at Blackdown is undoubtedly due to the expansion that took place during the War, when one had to improvise things very quickly, but I do not think that when they were erected anyone imagined that they would last as long as they have lasted. I recall that I took part, in erecting some hutments, and I recollect the language of the troops in regard to the quality of the wood, but I am bound to say that I think they were misinformed, or else the people who have been living in the hutments ever since have been suffering privations which they ought not to have been called upon to undergo. I hope that whoever answers for the War Office will be able to give us an assurance that in their very big building programme the War Office will have some regard, first to the comfort of the troops, and secondly to the amenities of the district into which they bring their buildings.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I wish to make a protest against the inadequate amount of this Vote which is to be expended in Scotland. I do so more in sorrow than in anger. I think there is a case for a larger proportion of this sum being spent in Scotland. I know that the reply is that the needs of the Army are the first consideration rather than the needs of Scotland as compared with those of England and Wales, but surely the Army in Scotland requires just as suitable accommodation, and when one remembers the rigours of our Northern climate one would expect that even more money proportionately would be spent in providing adequate barracks in Scotland as compared with England. What do we find in this Estimate? Of the total, £1,101,600


represents the items for Home Commands, and out of that grand total there are certain items which have not been allocated between one Command and another, but out of the net total to be spent on the Home Commands which have been allocated, namely, £620,000, there is only one item relative to Scotland, representing a sum of £15,000.
We have in other matters the Goschen ratio of 11 parts to 80 parts representing the approximate share of the money to be spent in Scotland, compared with England and Wales. This corresponds roughly to the ratio of the population of the two countries. Here we have not 11 to 80 but of 1 to 41, which is quite disproportionate and calls for some explanation from my right hon. Friend. The total number of items in the Home Command is 97 for new works and buildings, and there is only one item for Scotland. That one item concerns the new artillery barracks at Redford. There was another scheme which was under consideration by the War Office before the question of the barracks at Redford arose. Last year there appeared two token Votes, one for the new military hospital and one for these artillery barracks. The item for these artillery barracks is £15,000, but the other item, for the military hospital, has disappeared. That calls for some explanation, because there is a strong case for the work on the new military hospital being proceeded with as soon us possible. The situation at present is that the existing military hospital is at Edinburgh Castle. There is no garrison there now. The troops are some three miles away at Redford. An issue of life and death might arise owing to the transport of a sick soldier to this almost inaccessible hospital on the top of the Castle rock some three miles from the Redford barracks. I understand that the decision has already been taken to build the hospital, but I ask for some explanation as to why the item has been dropped.
I would also ask that in this particular case, where there is a need for this new military hospital, this scheme should have early consideration and steps taken to accelerate the building of this hospital, which would not only meet an immediate demand but would provide accommodation in Edinburgh Castle

which could be utilised for other purposes.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: There is one point on page 196. I notice that there are scattered about in various items something like £250,000 to be spent on buildings. There has already been over £1,500,000 spent at Catterick. One does not begrudge money spent on the troper accommodation for the troops, but there are very great difficulties in Catterick, in so far as some of the old buildings have to be rehabilitated and some, indeed, might have been pulled down. How much longer is all this to go on under these various items? They are almost interminable. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that these matters are essential for the proper housing of the troops, all right. Catterick is becoming a very costly item, especially so far as the erection of buildings is concerned.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I am sorry that this question has come at such a late hour, but when important matters and items such as are contained in these Estimates have to be examined there are a few points I want to make. I would like to know why it is that we now have these great items of expenditure at Aldershot on the new workshop. At Aldershot we are spending £25,000 on the new workshop and £11,000 we are spending between now and 31st March this year. For the Royal Engineers at Blackdown, workshops again, another £14,000; at Colchester, workshop, 217,000. Why we are not using Feltham to a greater extent I do not know, but we are now spending £16,500; at Woolwich, on the signals department, £17,000; at Chilwell, the old munition factory, £80,000; at Jersey Barracks, £20,000; at Lichfield, £30,000; at Singapore a sum of £470,000, while we have planned up to 31st March this year, £1,352,000. There it provision of these workshops in these parts while we are mechanising so much of the Army. Why should we spend so much on this item? I hope we are going to have an explanation.

10.13 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised a point about what he called


the high cost of the increased accommodation that we are providing at Hong Kong. If I tell him that living at Hong Kong is not the same as living in the British Isles, he will perhaps realise that to build barracks in a hot and difficult climate, if you are to study the comfort of the troops, requires a big outlay of money. It is because we have been considering the increased accommodation and the larger buildings required by troops living in that climate that we have to meet what on the face of it appears to be a large bill of expenditure for these particular barracks. He asked me whether we would take care to see that the hutments that are being replaced at Blackdown fall in with the beauties of the scenery in that part of England. We study these factors as much as we possibly can, and not only do we try to get these new buildings as nice in design as possible, but we also try to study the amenities and the comfort of the troops. I can point to what was done at Stonehenge, where care was taken to screen the buildings from the particular beauty spot the public are in the habit of visiting, in order not to detract from its attractiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) asked questions about the proportion of money which is being spent on buildings in Scotland and claimed that we were not being quite fair to Scotland and were not giving her a fair share of expenditure. He very skilfully worked out the cost on those lines, but for the sake of his reputation I can only hope that he will verify the facts a little more closely than he appears to have done. The basis upon which his case is founded is most fallacious, as figures are apt to be.

Mr. GUY: They are official figures.

Sir V. WARRENDER: In the first place, he entirely ignored the fact that the whole number of troops in Scotland does not exceed 5,000, or rather less than one-fifth of the number of troops at Aldershot alone. If he compares the amount of money spent on buildings in Scotland on a monetary basis, it is not very easy to arrive at a right conclusion. He seems to have forgotten that last year the concluding work upon the depot at Aberdeen cost no less than £135,000, so that Scotland had a fair share there. Being a Scotsman by birth, I look at

this aspect of the question very closely. The hon. Member opposite asked me about the building at Catterick. The reason why this expenditure has been dribbling on and has got to the high figure which it has, is that we have been replacing buildings erected in the time of the War, which were not meant to be permanent. When buildings of this kind fall into disrepair they decay very rapidly, and the cost of repairs and upkeep increases as time goes on. The Estimates for which we are asking to-day are to improve very largely the conditions at Catterick, which are not too good, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the money for which we shall have to ask when our further programme comes along will also be devoted to that end.
The only other hon. Gentleman who asked questions was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) who again, as on the previous occasion, reeled off his questions to me fast and furious. If we are to continue mechanisation upon the scale which applies to the Army to-day, it is inevitable that we must build a large number of workshops. Not only in this country, but wherever our mechanised Army goes, it will have to maintain its vehicles. We are trying to avoid all possible waste. We are encouraging the Royal Army Service Corps, and in fact we are insisting upon that corps, and upon the Royal Army Ordnance Corps utilising common workshops where economy can be gained by working one with the other. It will be inevitable, as the process of mechanisation goes on, that we shall be continually constructing accommodation to house these vehicles, some of which are on a very large scale, and we shall have to ask Parliament to provide the money with which to carry out that programme. I think that I have covered all the questions which have been put to me, and I ask the Committee to let me have the Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

10.21 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: There is one point upon which I should like the hon. Member to give us some information.


This is the first opportunity I have had of raising the matter, but during the last Election certain officers who were either on half pay or full pay thought it right to contribute articles to the newspapers in which they advocated substantial increases in our armaments. There was one communication from Lord Allenby. I have always understood that it is contrary to War Office regulations that serving officers should contribute articles to the newspapers and in particular should attempt to influence the electorate on matters of policy. Is the hon. Member in a position to give me any information? Was this done with the approval and authority of the War Office, and, if not, has any communication been addressed to these officers instructing them that they are not to contribute articles to newspapers, particularly during election time? Everyone knows that the mind of a field-marshal or general is not trained suitably to attempt to give information on matters of high policy. He is an executive officer, and has been trained to carry out the policy as prescribed for him by the Cabinet. That being so, I think it would be a regrettable development if serving officers were to be permitted to make contributions to the Press. I shall be glad if the hon. Member is in a position to reply either now or can undertake to give me an answer before we finally pass the Vote.

Sir V. WARRENDER: The hon. Member has rather sprung this on me and I have had no chance of going into the question. It is rather difficult to carry all the regulations of the Army in one's mind, but I will gladly go into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

10.24 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I want to ask a question as regards the position of the Yeomen Warders of the Tower. They have desired to press a case with regard to wages, but whenever they have made a request for their union to represent them or to speak on their behalf the War Office and the Constable of the Tower have

refused to accept anyone as their spokesman. They are treated as if they are in the Army and serving in the ranks. I hope this policy will not be continued and that the men will have an opportunity of being represented. The other point concerns Chelsea Hospital. What has been done, or is anything being done, with regard to pre-War pensioners who come under this Vote? These men are receiving a pension of 6d. a day and many of them are in a state of semi-starvation. I ask that their case should be considered and that something should be done to make an increase in this pension, which is inadequate for them at this time.

Sir V. WARRENDER: The question of yeoman warders is at present under consideration at the War Office and I am not in a position to-night to give a definite answer. With regard to the second point, I would ask the hon. Member to allow me to go into that and to communicate with him at the earliest possible moment.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [17TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £1,249 17s. 8d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £3,426,845 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
3. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending of the 31st day of March, 1937, the sum of £251,241,900 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United. Kingdom."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. W. S. Morrison.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to 111E service of the


years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, and one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.28 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): On the occasion of the Third Reading of this Bill, the House finds itself confronted with exactly the same circumstances as those prevailing when this Bill was read the Second time. The shortage of world trade and the surplus of world tonnage make it difficult for tramp shipping to make both ends meet. Tramp shipping is an essential part of the British Mercantile Marine, and the British tramp shipping industry must be maintained. There can be little doubt that in the first year of the subsidy tramp shipping has received substantial help and the tendencies for the tramp shipping industry still further to deteriorate have been arrested. It would be the wildest misdescription to pretend that tramp shipping, by reason of the subsidy, has either received a bribe or a generous present. The distribution of the subsidy was made on the basis of a scheme approved by Parliament, designed to assure that it was fairly distributed and effectively directed to secure its object.
Members have in their hands the particulars of the way in which the subsidy has been distributed. They will note many interesting facts from the White Paper containing that information. Let me summarise a few of the conclusions which are to be drawn from the information given in Command Paper 5129. The total amount distributed was £1,989,999 12s. The amount of the subsidy paid to each recipient varies, of course, a great deal. Concerns receiving £50,000 and over were five; more than

£30,000 and less than £50,000 were eight; more than £15,000 and less than £30,000 were 16; under £15,000 were 349. Out of the total of 378 recipients, 349 received less than £15,000 each, but received in the aggregate well over £1,000,000. The smaller owners, that is those owning less than 30,000 tons of shipping engaged in tramp trades, of which the majority own only one or two ships, have received more than half of the subsidy in the aggregate, although they own a great deal less than half of the amount of tramp tonnage.
During the passage of this Bill through the House no valid argument against the proposals contained in it has emerged. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There has been no valid argument against the Bill. I have heard no arguments at all, valid or not. The Opposition has mainly been concerned with criticising measures taken to ensure the seaworthiness of British ships and the conditions provided for British seamen. These are admittedly matters of the greatest importance, but they are not relevant to the consideration of this Bill, because it aims at the particular issue of keeping the tramp tonnage in existence. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) appreciated that position very much, because he pointed out in his speech on 3rd March that the point is whether the tramp shipping industry requires any measure of assistance at all in order to escape from depression. I will take that as the test, and there can be no doubt of the answer. The small improvement in the average freight rates for 1935 was due mainly to circumstances of a temporary character. The movement has ceased and the freight index has fallen and is still falling. The absence of demand for tonnage in the trade from the River Plate has created a serious situation. Had it not been for the fact of the minimum freight scheme, rates would have fallen still lower. There was a decrease in the amount of British tramp tonnage laid up. But I am afraid that that downward tendency has now ceased, and that an increase of laid-up tonnage may be revealed in the next returns.
The claim made by the Government for the subsidy is that, as a result of the conditions laid down for its payment, it effectively and without waste secures the maintenance of British tramp ships in employment without detriment to other


classes of British shipping. The continuation of the subsidy is essential in existing conditions of world trade, and it is unthinkable that we should allow the British tramp shipping industry to revert to the impossible condition from which it was rescued during 1935.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
When the hon. Member was moving the Second Reading of the original Bill describing the romance and the glory of the sea as it affected people who served in ships, he said that he did not want to become lyrical on the subject. No one could accuse him of trying to be lyrical to-night. He has given us a little homily on how the subsidy is being distributed, but not any reason for it. He has told us that five firms have taken over £50,000 each and certain other firms have had over £30,000 each. He further said that he had heard no argument against the subsidy as such. I hope that to-night I shall be able to adduce one or two arguments which the President of the Board of Trade may take the trouble to answer. One of the first things to which I will call attention is this: I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) is not in his place to-night. I was going to say that, perhaps, the reason is that with his firm getting a subsidy of £50,000 this year he really did not think he ought to stand forth and declare himself with his hands stuck in the taxpayers' pockets.
The right hon. Gentleman has been kind to his friends. In the north east trade something like 90 out of 374 shipping companies, 24 per cent. of the total, have received between them £565,000 out of the subsidy of £2,000,000, which is 26 per cent. of the total. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash are really saying "Parliament is a good thing for a distressed area if shipowners have their being in a distressed area." If a small man in business fails, does he get a subsidy? If an unemployed worker loses his job, does he get a subsidy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I expected someone to say that, but I would remind those hon. Members

that the gentleman who gets his "dole," as they misdescribe it, in fact finds the whole of the three contributions towards the funds, since without work no profit exists and no taxes can be paid.
The original Act excluded from subsidy all vessels that were not registered under the British flag. That was in January, 1934. The reason was obvious. A note had gone forward to the shipping industry that a Bill was to be introduced. Friends were in office there were friends at court, and the method adopted was by giving publicity some months before the Shipping Subsidy Bill was put forward in this House. A White Paper was published months before the advent of that Bill to warn the shipowners connected with tramp shipping that there was a possibility for them, in conjunction with many other industries, to get their hands into the taxpayers' pockets. That in itself was an inducement to many shipowners with vessels registered under foreign flags, to register them under British flags in order to come within the terms of the subsidy—in fact, for foreign shipowners with directors who are known as "guinea pigs," that is, who hold shares to a nominal amount in order to conform to the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, to bring their ships under the British registry to gain the advantage of this subsidy.
Everybody knew, and certainly the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash knew, that this subsidy was not for a year and that it was going on for another year. The hon. and gallant Member for West Eirkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) postulated the possibility of 10 years for this subsidy. In February, 1935, the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said:
I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it will be found at the end of the year, when the subsidy period is up, that a further grant, in respect of next year, will be necessary. I have never disguised that opinion. So long as other nations continue to subsidise, we shall need to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1935; col. 712, Vol. 297.]
He has never disguised his opinion. His opinion has been given to this House on many subjects connected with shipping. The total reward to his company is a sum in excess of £50,000 out of the pocket s of the British taxpayers, in the last year of subsidy. Having staked his claim for a further year and, on behalf of the shipowners,


having staked their claim—they have got a Bill here for its Third Reading—I presume that he is looking forward with an avaricious eye to see whether it is not possible to augment that sum next year. A firm with which the right hon. Gentleman is not unconnected, I refer to the Moor Line, receives £40,000 in subsidy.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash: Are not they a little ashamed of the fact that they can come here on behalf of their friends in the shipowning industry and take, year after year, millions of money out of the taxpayers' pockets, in respect of and for the profit of shareholders? That was the right hon. Gentleman's term in the Debate on the Committee stage. We have never yet been convinced, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have ever convinced this side of the House, of the truth of their statement that other countries are subsidising tramp shipping as such. On no occasion have they given us figures to justify the statement. We know that in the Plate trade the greatest competitors with the British shipowners are the Greeks, and no statement has ever been made that the Greeks are subsidising those ships. Again, under the last Act and under the new, tramp vessels have transferred from foreign flags to British registry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many British companies operating in the eastern Mediterranean, many of which have been the subject of questions in this House, companies which are disreputable, whose ships are disreputable and who have never conformed to the rates applicable by the Maritime Board, will come within the terms of this subsidy? A condition of the subsidy is that Maritime Board conditions shall apply. I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman one of several cases in which those conditions are not applied.
I take the case of a firm, Messrs. Everard, Limited, who received the comparatively small sum of £67 16s. I have here the details of an able seaman employed by this firm between August and December, 1935. He worked no less than 277½ hours' overtime, and the firm are refusing to pay a single penny of the money due. It is true that that vessel is

employed mostly in the coasting trade, but they have qualified for a small portion of the subsidy. If none of these voyages come within the subsidy, the position appears to be that shipowners are observing the National Maritime Board's conditions on subsidised voyages and taking it out of the seamen on other trips. This particular man has 27 years' service before the mast. Is the Board of Trade taking any steps to see that on subsidised voyages their regulations are being carried out in their entirety? In this same firm a man employed as a cook and ordinary seaman on the motor vessel "Saunter" had to remove his bed to the wheelhouse at night to get rest, because the allotted accommodation was reeking with vermin, and the sanitary authorities at Southampton had to compel the owners to take the necessary action. In another vessel owned by the same firm, the "Actuality," it is alleged that the ship's articles and the Board of Trade Regulations have never been placed in a position where they can be seen by the crew. This same firm sought to deprive this seaman of his unemployment benefit when he finally left their service. They accused him of neglect of duty and insolence, but fortunately his union took the case up, and he was able to get his benefit.
The firm of William Robertson of Glasgow drew £2,185 in subsidy. They do not observe the National Maritime Board's conditions in any respect. They do not insert clauses in the articles, and they make no payment for overtime. J. S. Monks, Limited, of Liverpool, who drew £1,275 in subsidy, insert no clauses in the articles and do not pay overtime, nor is any time given in lieu thereof. These conditions of the Act are being broken already. The firm of John Kelly do not observe the conditions, either by the insertion of clauses in the articles or by paying overtime or giving time off in lieu; and Sir Samuel Kelly, O.B.E., of Belfast, who drew £1,337 10s. in subsidy, is in a like position. Then there is the Lyle Shipping Company, who drew in subsidy £11,193. The steamship "Cape Nelson" recently sailed from Methil with Arabs, while numbers of local unemployed white seamen and firemen were available. The steamship "Cape Sable," a new vessel signing on in Glasgow to-morrow, insisted on Arab


firemen being carried, while in Glasgow there are 500 white firemen on the live register. Incidentally, this firm imported the Arab firemen into Glasgow for the purpose of shipping them on board this ship. I believe it was the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash who said, when challenging my right hon. Friend, that it is well-known that Las-cars and Chinese are not carried on board tramp ships. Here is a case in point, where the ship has actually the crew on board. The firm of Henry M. Thomson, of Edinburgh, who drew £10,954 in subsidy, was referred to in the previous Debate in regard to the employment of Chinese firemen. Of course, it is said that every Chinaman who goes aboard a ship was born in Hong Kong, and every Arab was born in Aden. Everyone knows that, as long as they understand helm orders, that is good enough.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, before an Arab seaman can obtain employment in a British tramp ship which has to qualify for the subsidy under this Measure he has to produce satisfactory proof of nationality, not only to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, but also of the seamen's union?

Mr. SMITH: That satisfactory proof to the Board of Trade is "I was born in Aden, I was born in Hong Kong, I understand helm orders." Then we have the Clan Line steamers, £17,608 subsidy, one of the largest employers of Chinese seamen and firemen. These firms are not conforming to the National Maritime Board's conditions. May I call attention to one or two of the companies benefiting by this subsidy, which goes to rich and poor companies alike? There is the Bank Line, paid up capital £574,829, value of the fleet £3,500,000. This company has received the largest share of the subsidy, £76,780 1s. 3d. Their financial record has been referred to in previous Debates. Over 14 years the average dividend of this company has been 11 per cent., or a total of 154 per cent. In that time they have issued capital bonuses amounting to 373¾ per cent. Part of that dividend was on this watered capital, and the actual cash return was much greater. Some of the dividends were tax free, and throughout the period the preference

dividends have been paid regularly. There is £1,350,000 in the general reserve, and the depreciation y ear by year has equalled 7 per cent., and not 5 per cent. as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. In all, this firm hat; 51 ships, and the amount of subsidy this year to the company is equal to 14 per cent. of their capital—surely not a very grave condition for a company to be in to qualify for the subsidy.
The Nitrate Producers Steamship Company, Limited, have seven vessels, £156,200 paid-up capital, and the amount of subsidy received is £19,933, or 12 per cent. of their capital. Their record over the last 14 years shows that dividends have amounted to 125 per cent., or an average each year of 9 per cent. The investment has been completely refunded plus 25 per cent. The capital reserve is £446,000, and the valuation of the fleet, less depreciation, is £281,000. The Monarch Steamship Company have four vessels, subsidy £10,635. In 14 years the total dividend has been 131 per cent., or an average of 9¼. Their investment has been completely refunded in that period, plus 31 per cent. Three-fifths of the capital was issued in the form of bonus shares, so that the actual return on cash invested would be made than double the figures already given. The depreciation and reserve are £222,000, and the book value of the ships £160,000. The subsidy represents 2 per cent. on the capital, but 5 per cent. on the actual cash invested.
I come to the Ropner Shipping Company, and I give the hon. and gallant Member and his company the credit that they have a dark and mysterious way of keeping their accounts. Nobody can find out the real methods of this company. They have a share capital written down from £1,350,000 to £822,000, and the valuation of the fleet is £733,000. Their quota of the subsidy is equal to over 6 per cent. of their capital in one year and over 8 per cent. of the value of their total fleet—not 5 per cent. depreciation as stated by the President of the Board of Trade.
When we come to depreciation, I should like to call attention to a statement issued by the Seamen's Union. The right hon. Gentleman stated that on a. 5 per cent. basis £1,200,000 was, necessary to go to reserve for depreciation in the tramp section of the shipping industry, yet on a


search of the Shipowners', Shipbuilders' and Marine Engineers' Directory, the number of ships found in a brief survey was 150 over 20 years of age. The first company had 11 ships and the years' service put together exceeded the 20 years per ship by no less than 117 years. The second company had 112 ships, whose aggregate service exceeded the life given by the right hon. Gentleman by 114 years, and the third company 78 ships, whose aggregate exceeded the life of 20 years by 148 years. The fifth company has 59 ships. Their aggregate is 169 years above the 20 years' life given. In the sixth company there are 14 over 20 years of age and the aggregate number of years in excess of 20 was 199 years, a grand total of 859 years in excess of the 20 years life given by the right hon. Gentleman.
If the money that is given to the tramp shipping industry under the Bill is, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, to assist the companies in maintaing their fleets, when the 20 years have expired what happens with the scrap price of the vessel when it is sold? Surely that comes into the account. Surely it is the excessive years of life of the ships that makes it possible for many companies to put aside sums which create hidden reserves which we cannot discover. When the Committee stage was on we had the Manning Committee's Report. If ever the President of the Board of Trade was condemned for inaction with regard to the manning scales, going back as far as 1909, he was condemned by that committee. On the Third Reading we are getting the Steering Gear Committee's Report, which is another condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. Again, his own committee of experts have condemned him out of hand in that report. I wonder what we shall hear when the report on accommodation for seamen comes along and whether we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman a statement that it is to be a condition of the receipt of the subsidy, that the steering gear shall be altered, that the manning scales shall be operated in full and that proper accommodation shall be provided for British seamen on these ships. When we look at the people who are distributing this subsidy, again we get the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash. He sits on the main administrative committee for the dis-

tribution of the subsidy. Then upon the sub-committees, in the Australian trade we see a Mr. J. R. Ropner—I do not know whether he is a brother or any relative of the hon. and gallant Member—in the south-eastern Pacific trade, we find the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash himself, and in the Russian and Far Eastern trade we find a relative of the right hon. Gentleman himself, namely, Mr. Philip Runciman, no doubt looking after the interests of the family and of tramp shipping in general.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I hope so.

Mr. SMITH: Just as the right hon. Gentleman hopes that his relatives outside are looking after those interests, so they are hoping that he inside is looking after their's and their hope is not the hope deferred that maketh the heart sick. Their hopes are realised by receiving 26 per cent. of the total subsidy to shipping companies on the north-east coast alone. If it is right for the shipowners to administer this subsidy, is it not equally right that the unemployed should administer their benefit? Is it not equally right that the public assistance committees should be run by the unemployed who have exhausted their benefit? If it is wrong for those people to do that, then it is equally wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to allow the shipowners to distribute between themselves this sum which has been drawn from the British taxpayer. In the last discussion the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no intention of entering into a debate with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) but, he said:
As to the purely practical point of what becomes of the money, it is a matter of indifference to those in these companies Whether the money is devoted entirely to renewals or used in the payment of a moderato dividend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1936; col. 1353, Vol. 309.]
Does he still say that? If he does, where is his case that the money is going into the pockets of the shipowners for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the tramp fleet on the high seas? Of course, it is going to profit. Everybody knows that and the real reason for this is because other industries have been getting subsidies. The Liverpool Shipowners Society and the Parliamentary Committee of the Shipping Federation


bath attribute the so-called parlous condition of the tramp shipping industry to the policy of the Government, the policy of economic nationalism, the policy of shutting out trade. Here we have the Parliamentary Secretary who has on many occasions waxed lyrical in the lecture room telling us of the glories of Free Trade. Sitting beside him is the right hon. Gentleman, who, if he has not waxed lyrical or eloquent in the lecture room, has been one of the keenest critics of Conservative Governments of the past, yet to-day he is here supporting that policy of economic nationalism and destroying an industry which it has taken many decades to build up. As my right hon. Friend beside me reminds me, it is a case of a couple of gamekeepers turned poachers. We therefore say that the Act which this Bill seeks to depose has never operated as it was the intention of the Government it should operate, that National Maritime Board conditions have not been observed, and that no action has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman to see that they have been met. With regard to the general conditions, we claim that it is unnecessary to continue this subsidy, and we on this side of the House shall vote against it.

11.7 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: There seems to be no little difference of opinion within the ranks of the Socialist party on the question whether a subsidy is good or bad, and I do not think any hon. Member of this House who listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) or indeed of his hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) gathered that impression either on the Financial Resolution or on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think I am within the memory of the House when I say that the right hon. Member for Wakefield went out of his way to tell the House and the country that as far as his party were concerned they were not opposed to subsidies, but in certain circumstances they welcomed them and gave them their support.
In the energetic attack which the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) has launched against the Government to-night, he has singled out, as most of his friends generally do, my

hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who seems to be a particularly sympathetic target for their arguments on the shipping industry. I think I am correct in stating that as far as the Ropner Shipping Company is concerned, it has not paid any dividends for the last seven years, while, to listen to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, one would gather the impression that it was living on dividends derived from subsidies voted by this House a id drawn from the taxpayers' pockets. It is not for me to deal with that aspect of the case to-night. I think that case has been answered conclusively, not only by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, but in detail by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first part of the speech of the hon. Member, if I followed him correctly, he invited the House to believe that this subsidy was only given to the prosperous and big companies, and that the small man—

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: I said that both the rich and the poor receive the subsidy, but that no discrimination was made and that the wealthy ones were getting away with the boodle.

Captain EVANS: I am very glad to hear from my hon. Friend that such conditions obtain within the ranks of the tramp shipping section of the shipping industry to-day. Coming as I do from the city of Cardiff, I was not aware that there were any wealthy tramp shipping companies Left, and I am indeed glad to hear that from my hon. Friend. I rise particularly to deal with an aspect of this situation which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on the Second Reading. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends, he launched an unjustifiable attack not only on the port of Cardiff but in particular on Cardiff shipowners. He invited the House to believe that the question of health, so far as it affected the mercantile marine, and in particular ships which were registered in the port of Cardiff, was worse not only than in any other country in the world but, indeed, worse in Cardiff than in any other port in the United Kingdom. In support of his argument he quoted from a report of the medical officer of health appointed by the Cardiff Corporation.
It is unfortunate, if he was anxious to give a fair and impartial review of this situation, that he did not quote from other parts of that report, where it pointed out that in the city of Cardiff and the port of Cardiff there were more Arab seamen employed by the shipping industry and shipping interests than in any other port in the United Kingdom—a fact which obviously largely accounts for the rate of tuberculosis within these particular sections of the industry. The hon. Gentleman, I regret, is not in his place. I inquired previously if he would be here. It is a matter of regret that he did not draw the attention of the House to page 57 of the report from which he quoted, because if he had done so on this page of the report of the Public Health Department of the City and Port of Cardiff in 1934, these words appear:
It is well known that the death rate from tuberculosis among seamen, especially Arabs, is high, and the proportion of Arabs residing at Cardiff is exceptionally high.
I think it is admitted that there are no conclusive statistics regarding the health of the British mercantile marine, but no doubt many hon. Members above the Gangway will remember that in 1932 a very careful inquiry into the health of the mercantile marine was undertaken by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, at the joint request of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his colleague, the Minister of Health. In September of that year they issued a report under the title of Statistics Relating to Mortality in the Mercantile Marine. That report is obtainable at His Majesty's Stationery Office. If the hon. Member for Seaham, before making these charges on the Floor of the House, had taken the trouble to refresh his memory by referring to the report from which I am quoting now he would have found, on page 58, the joint conclusions of that committee of inquiry, wherein it is stated that, apart from drowning and injury, service in the mercantile marine is no more dangerous to life and health than are many of the occupations ashore frequently regarded as healthful. We find too, that the health of the Mercantile Marine does not compare unfavourably with that of the Royal Navy, despite the fact that candidates for the latter are subject to the most careful

form of selection on health and constitutional grounds.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now on the Third Reading, and it is very difficult to find any passage in the Bill to which this is relative.

Captain EVANS: I am very anxious on all occasions to keep within your Ruling. I would not have attempted to deal with this aspect of the particular case had I been fortunate to catch your eye on the Second Reading. Unfortunately, I was not so favoured, but in view of what you say I will not pursue that point, but will leave it until a more favourable occasion. I will return, in that case, to some of the arguments submitted to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe who referred to the question of steering gear. It is a pity that he did not realise at the time of his speech that the question of steering gear is at this very moment under the consideration of a special committee.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: The report has already been issued.

Captain EVANS: The hon. Gentleman is a little previous. I am quite aware of the fact that the committee has already issued a report, but I am sure that he would not desire my right hon. Friend, charged with the responsibility with which he is charged, to take action in this matter until he had had an opportunity of carefully considering the report. My right hon. Friend is, I understand, engaged in that consideration, and I am sure that at the earliest opportunity he will inform the hon. Gentleman of the result of his conclusions. If one could infer anything at all from the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, it would be that, as a result of the subsidy granted by this House, the tramp section of the shipping industry was now in a flourishing condition. What are the facts of the case? They are far from those to be drawn from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. It is true to say that, even after one year's operation of the subsidy, the freights obtaining in the tramp shipping section of the industry to-day are no less than 50 per cent. below those of the pre-war level.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: In spite of the Government's record?

Captain EVANS: If the Socialist party had their way to-day, owing to the uneconomic and unfair competition coming from foreign countries, there would be no tramp shipping of British origin left on the seas of the world. I am not certain whether that is the real object of the hon. Member, or whether he is indulging in that very delightful pastime of opposing any legislation proposed by His Majesty's Government. I naturally share his view that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose, but while opposing, surely, it is not only in the interests of those whom they represent in this House, but in the interests of the country as a whole, that they should oppose with fairness, and tell the House of Commons the real condition of affairs irrespective of any political capital they hope to make out of it by putting forward illogical and partial arguments from that Box.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Last night we were discussing the conduct of the Government at Geneva on hours and wages. I presume the hon. and gallant Member did not hear that Debate, but whatever conditions of labour obtain abroad the Government are largely responsible because of its international policy.

Captain EVANS: I did not hear the whole of the Debate, but I gathered that it was unfair in the interests of the workers of this country to reduce the hours of work if that reduction entailed a reduction of wages. This is an important point; it is a question of dividends versus operating costs. It is true that operating costs have increased largely owing to the restoration of wage cuts to coal trimmers, stokers, and officers and men. The restoration of these cuts was in no way grudged by those who had to restore them, but it is unfair to say that it will not necessitate an increase in operating costs on the part of those who run the tramp shipping industry of this country. It is also well to remember that by conveying wheat at unprofitable rates, shipowners have contributed largely to the lower price of bread which is enjoyed by the community at large. In other ways the tramp shipping industry have been rendering great services to this country, which the Labour party have no right to despise. I want to appeal to the coalowners to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in its endeavours

to place the tramp shipping industry once again on a sound economic basis, when subsidies would not be necessary. I hope that the coalowners, and particularly the coalowners of South Wales, will see to it that a fair proportion of British ships will be employed to carry pit wood from France and Portugal to Welsh ports. Unfortunately, a very large amount of foreign bottoms and foreign tonnage is employed in this trade to-day, and for the life of me I do not understand why that should be. I think also that this is a unique opportunity for my right hon. Friend, in concluding any trade agreements with foreign countries, to see that, when it is a question of essential raw material coming to this country, a fair proportion of that raw material shall be carried in British tramp ships rather than in foreign ships. Unfortunately, we see this condition of affairs obtaining in no little degree in the vicinity of Russia. At the moment it is true to say that the position of trade, as far as Russia is concerned, is most detrimental not only to shipping interests in this country, but to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is concerned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order!

Captain EVANS: I do not wish to annoy you, Sir, or the House, and I place myself unreservedly in your hands, because I am sure you will realise that, while this may appear a matter of little importance to hon. Gentlemen on my right, it is a question of vital importance to the city of Cardiff, which I have the honour to represent in this House. It is a fact that under the present trading agreements and the present—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Third Reading of the Bill the hon. Member must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.

Captain EVANS: On that point of Order, Sir, am I not correct in submitting to you and to the House that when a question of a subsidy is involved and the taxpayers' money is being directed into a certain channel, I should put forward arguments to the effect that the industry which is receiving that subsidy should enjoy certain trade relations under the auspices of an agreement arrived at between the President of the Board of Trade, which, in my modest opinion, are


operating unfairly against that particular section of the industry?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be perfectly in order either on the Committee stage of the Resolution or on the Second Reading. I do not think the question arises now.

Captain EVANS: Whether it arises or whether it does not, may I conclude by saying that I hope that whenever an opportunity does arise an hon. Member, whether he comes from above or below the Gangway, will draw attention to this particular case? May I also say that I hope most sincerely that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in replying to the arguments of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, will take the opportunity of assuring the House that, as far as the tramp section of the shipping industry is concerned, they will have no reason at all to feel apprehensive with regard to Russian trade?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech made by the hon. Member on the Front bench opposite was full of criticism of individuals who are supposed in some curious and tortuous way to have been laying their hands on public money to which they were not entitled. That, I think, was the main burden of his story. To begin with, let me point out that both the hon. Gentleman and his party are committed to the principle of subsidy, and that when recently we had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on this subject, he stated that the party to which he belonged was not opposed to subsidy in principle, but that what they objected to was the way in which it was distributed.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: That has been the burden of my story this evening.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Let us see how it is distributed, because the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his interpretation of the machinery by which it is distributed. He said that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) was either himself or through his family in some way connected with the distribution of this subsidy. That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. SMITH: He is a member of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee and also of one of the sub-committees dealing with the St. Lawrence trade.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that it is the Administrative Committee which advises in the distribution of the subsidy. The Advisory Committee does that, and there is no member of the Ropner family on that Committee at all. I need not trouble the House with the full list of those who sit in that Committee.

Mr. SMITH: I have here a report to the President of the Board of Trade on the work of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee, and the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) appears on that Committee. There is also Mr. Philip Runciman.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: But where the hon. Member is mistaken is in thinking that that is the Committee which distributes the subsidy. It is not. The Committee which does that is provided for in Section 1 (3) of the Act of last year. The hon. Member is absolutely inaccurate in thinking that the Administrative Committee distributes the subsidy. To add colour to his speech he said that Mr. Philip Runciman is on some of these freight committees. A freight committee does not distribute the subsidy but seeks by organisation to maintain minimum freights, which benefit not only tramp shipping, but cargo liners, ships of and foreign mercantile marines which are working in agreement with ours—

Mr. SMITH: Arising out of the Tramp Shipping Act.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly, but that is the organisation of minimum freights—

Mr. SMITH: As a condition of getting public money, the shipowners have agreed to minimum freights, nationally and internationally, and these people sit on these committees to make it possible for them to get the subsidy by that method.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the hon. Member really believe that there is some honesty, even among business men? The object of the freight committees is to devise means by which minimum freights shall


be maintained, and in doing that they are benefiting tramp shipping and all other sections of shipping and the seafaring community. I come to another criticism I have to make of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. From beginning to end there was never a word of recognition of the fact that if the tramp shipping fleets were not kept together the people who would first suffer are their crews. It would not be a question then as to the terms under which they would be employed, for they would not be employed at all.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Yes, they suffered. There were 40,000 idle for years.

Mr. RUNGIMAN: That is true, and the shipping subsidy has wiped out that surplus, so that in many ports there is now an actual shortage of seamen. Special counts taken by the Ministry of Labour show the number of wholly unemployed seamen over 18 years of age in January, 1934, January, 1935, and December, 1935, to have been 39,100, 37,585 and 34,159. There is also a report from the Mercantile Marine Department. The Chief Superintendents were asked to furnish a report on unemployment, and they indicate that there is a shortage of experienced A.Bs at Victoria Docks, Southampton, Plymouth, Falmouth, Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Barry. There is a shortage of ordinary seamen at Glasgow, Leith, Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Hull and in South Wales, and of firemen at Poplar, Victoria Docks and Barry. On the subject of employment I prefer the official account, of which I have given a summary, to the distorted version of the situation given by the hon. Member. We can claim that by this scheme we have conferred greater benefits on the mercantile marine as a whole.
Let the House consider what would have been the state of this country if we had not maintained the mercantile marine. We are more dependent on sea traffic than any people in the world. It is only by maintaining that sea traffic that we can keep our foreign trade and provide ourselves with cheap raw material and cheap food. The employment of our people in the mercantile marine also gives a stimulus to our shipbuilding and ship repairing industries,

and the activities of our docks and harbours, and all these things are bound up with the prosperity of tramp shipping. If tramp shipping goes they all go, and the unemployment which would accrue would fall as a burden, first of all, on those who would be employed in these ships.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Let the taxpayers pay.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member is in favour of that principle I cannot understand why he should have made the speech he made to-night.
Let me, in conclusion, make one reference to a matter which is not directly concerned with the subsidy but which has been mentioned in the debate, and that is the report of the Steering Gear Committee. That report has only just been received, and it is riot a final report and some of the essential executive parts of it cannot be carried out at the moment. Paragraph 35 of the report says with reference to prescribing the precise dimensions to be adopted for various rudder requirements that that is not within their province, and that they have asked the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade to confer with the classification societies to advise on this matter, and that is being done. They also state that they have asked for specifications to be drawn up for various fittings, and so on, and for a table to be drawn up showing the maximum permissible amount of wear on different parts. In due course they will make a supplementary report on those matters. I submit that in a matter of such importance and technical quality, on which the lives of the men and the safety of the ships depend, changes in the steering gear, particularly in the older ships, should be made only with the advice of technicians behind us. We should not try experiments at the expense of those who go down to the sea in ships [Interruption]. The hon. Member has no justification for mentioning the "Blairgowrie". I deprecate that attempt to introduce prejudice.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: There can be no prejudice when the inquiry has resulted in a report that the steering gear of those four vessels was the cause of the trouble. Tie committee was set up arising out of that inquiry and it has


condemned the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member is much more interested in condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman than he is in the efficiency of these things. Let me say, in conclusion, that, despite these criticisms, the subsidy has undoubtedly saved the British tramp shipping industry from collapse and therein has conferred national benefit. It has prevented the abnormal transference of large blocks of British tonnage to foreign flags. It has increased the employment of British ships and British crews, and as long as it does that, it is justified.

11.41 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted that which is often attempted by an advocate with a hopeless case; he has tried to score a few cheap and shallow points at the expense of his opponent. One that he has demonstrated beyond the possibility of doubt is the complete and abyssmal failure of Capitalism. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They will find it a little difficult to support an argument in favour of the competitive system of private ownership, when that argument has to be supported by wholesale subsidies from the State. The two things are not really consistent. Those who believe that a virile industry can be built up through competition between individuals which is thereby going to serve the community as a whole, because that competition will produce the best, cannot at the same time claim the right, when that competition has ruined the industry, to come to the State for subsidies to support the industry. Those two arguments, unfortunately for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, are self-contradictory.
Here we have the President of the Board of Trade, a distinguished Member of a National Government which is supporting the system of private enterprise, coming to the House and saying that unless the State steps in with a subsidy this industry will disappear and that is a stronger condemnation of the present system than any that could be given from these benches. It is the demonstration by the arch-priest himself that his own religion has ceased to apply. This State subsidy is being distributed in a way which I should have thought could not

have met with either applause or approval from any Member of this House. Those who are suffering from the means test in this country will be better judges of whether the distribution of this subsidy is proper or not, than Members of this House, some of whom are interested in the proceeds of the subsidy itself. We have had a list given of a number of companies, who are as prosperous as any capitalist company could hope to be, and who are drawing large sums of money from this subsidy. It is no possible justification for the right hon. Gentleman or for anybody else to get up and say "Other companies are badly off and require the subsidy." Suppose they are. What is the justification for paying subsidies such as are being paid to the Bank Line, after the details which have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) of the history of that company for the last 16 years? Is there a Member of this House who can get up and justify the payment out of State funds of that sum to that company, when, at the same time, this House is saying that for numberless social requirements money cannot be forthcoming?
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is going to save the seaman in his job. Do the Bank Line want money to save their seamen in their jobs? The answer is "No." Then what right has the right hon. Gentleman or this House to pay out these sums to it? If a means test is applied as to whether people should receive money from the State or not, why not apply it to the Bank Line and its shareholders? It is curious that these very logical arguments which are used by Vile National Government when it is a question of the treatment of the workers of this country do not seem to apply when it is a question of the treatment of the capitalists of this country. And then hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have the audacity to accuse this party of stirring up the class struggle. If ever there has been class legislation put forward, this is class legislation—legislation to assist the right hon. Gentleman and members of his shipowning class, because, if they were allowed to suffer the logical consequences of the system in which they believe, they would go into bankruptcy, their ships would be sold at low prices


to people who would re-start the companies, and, on the basis of the low prices they paid for the ships, would then be able to make profits within the capitalist system.
It is an unfortunate and uncomfortable state of affairs for the right hon. Gentleman and those who believe in the same thing that whole industries should be forced into bankruptcy by the system they support, and so he, having the power, comes to this House and uses the majority he has behind him in order to produce those doles for industry which

are the logical result a his own policy and action. It is being said by the right hon. Gentleman that we in principle agree with subsidies. We have no objection to subsidies if those bodies to which they are paid are State owned and State-controlled bodies; but we have every objection to the payment of State subsidies to private persons, without any test whatsoever as to whether they require those subsidies or not.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 89.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[11.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Everard, W. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, I. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn)
Findlay, Sir E.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Fleming, E. L.
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Penny, Sir G.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Perkins, W R. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Petherick, M.


Bossom, A. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, F. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bull, B. B.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Burghley, Lord
Hanbury, Sir C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Remer, J. R.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jackson, Sir H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Spens, W. P.


Crooke, J. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Storey, S.


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De la Bère, R.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Wakefield, W. W.


Donner, P. W.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Ward, Lieut-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
McKie, J. H.
Wells, S. R.


Duggan, H. J.
Magnay, T.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Dunglass, Lord
Maxwell, S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eckersley, P. T.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)



Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliston, G. S.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sir James Blindell and Mr. James Stuart.


Errington, E.
Morgan, R. H.



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Ammon, C. G.
Benson, G.


Adams, D. M. (Popler, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)


Adamson W. M.
Banfield, J. W.
Burke, W. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Barnes, A. J.
Cape, T.




Chater, D.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H-ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Gallacher, W.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Markiew, E.
Viant, S. P.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, J. D.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 to 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the North Middlesex Gas Company, which was presented on the 3rd day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to

1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Darlington, which was presented on the 27th day of February and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'Clock.